A couple who were convicted of stealing £18,126 from a land speed record bid fund have had their appeal against their conviction rejected.

Ann Maria McGrath, 53, and her partner David Paul Hodgson, 46, were sentenced to 20 months in jail in November for stealing £18,126 from the Lonan Gentlemen’s Fellowship Supporters’ Club (LGFSC) in 2014.

Judge of Appeal Jeremy Storey and Deemster Alastair Montgomorie rejected their appeals which centred on an alleged ’misdirection by the trial Deemster when answering a written question from the jury (relating to theft of a lesser amount), raised about 15 minutes after retirement’.

During the appeal, Jim Travers, representing Ms McGrath, said that during the trial, he ’raised with Deemster Main Thompson the issue of whether the issue of whether the prosecution was required to prove the full amount of £18,126.13’.

Deemster Main Thompson expressed the view it did not, ’and that the jury only had to be satisfied in relation to one of the 38 withdrawals’.

David Clegg, representing Mr Hodgson made the same submission.

Mr Travers added that as the Deemster did not mention this in his summing up, but rather answered it in a question from the jury, it ’restrained him from properly addressing the issue as he would have wished’ in his closing statement. He argued this ’resulted in unfairness’.

However Judge Storey and Deemster Montgomerie rejected these claims, saying: ’Any restriction that was put on his closing speech was in our view self-imposed.’

They later said: ’No criticism is made of the Deemster [Main Thompson] that his direction to the jury on the issue raised in their question was incorrect. Nor is it suggested that the Deemster dealt with the concepts of appropriation and loss in incorrect terms or that he was not entitled to give such explanation.

’Nor is it contended that what the Deemster told the jury was inconsistent with prior discussions with counsel.’

And they rejected with ’no hesitation’ the suggestion the jury didn’t understand they couldn’t convict the pair for theft of a lesser amount.

They added: ’We do not believe that the convictions of the appellants were unsafe or unsatisfactory. There were no incorrect decisions or conclusions on questions of law. There was no material irregularity in the course of the trial.’