Instructions and contact details link at top of Start Menu  

Conservative Cornwall County Councillor Roger Screech's Statement
18 NOV 94

NOTE:- Screech's statement below is crystal clear evidence
that Caradon District Council's Solicitor Tolley and Chief Planning Officer Hartridge were lying.

What is more, it clearly shows
how we were trying to deal with the corruption from Liskeard Magistrates Court,
because they simply IGNORED the two charges Tim Wilmot drafted,
but which were submitted in Screech and Gist's names,
because it was all too clear that Tim Wilmot was being f**ked about.

Tim Wilmot cannot recall the exact circumstances of the statement,
but thinks it was written by Roger Screech himself,
and not by Tim Wilmot.

This makes this the ONLY document written by any councillor on his own initiative -
for which Tim Wilmot is deeply gratefull.


31 Beech Road, Callington, Cornwall, PL17 7JA
18 NOV 94

1.1.    I am a former Town and County Councillor for Callington.

1.2a.   I first became aware of Tim Wilmot's case in late 1990 or early 1991,
1.2b.   and I visited him, where I was shown his documents.

1.3a.    I was concerned by what I found out,
1.3b.    and I gave him my support,
1.3c.    which was limited by the fact that I am not a District Councillor.

2.1a.    In FEB 91 I assisted Mr Wilmot by putting my name
2.1b.    to the relevant extracts of documents
2.1c.    included in a number of questions sent to every District Councillor.

2.2a.    Mr Wilmot informed me that not one replied,
2.2b.    and that the Chief Executive of Caradon
2.2c.    had 'requested' that the Councillors leave the matter to the officers.

See Councillor Knott's 1993 Affidavit against Caradon District Council confirm this.

3.1.    On 18 JUL 91 I went with Tim Wilmot to Caradon District Council's offices.

3.2a.    The circumstances were that Mr Wilmot was to go to the County Court on 22 JUL 91
3.2b.    to make a counterclaim against Caradon's Injunction of 2 MAY 91.

3.3.    I went along to act as a witness.

4.1a.    On arriving at the offices,
4.1b.    Mr Wilmot and myself entered by the front door.

4.2a.    We were met by Caradon's Chief Executive, DAVID NEWELL,
4.2b.    who asked Mr Wilmot to go with him around a corner,
4.2c.    leaving me in the entrance foyer.

5a.    It became apparent that a large number of police were present,
5b.    and I understand Mr Wilmot was searched for firearms.

6.1a.    It was my understanding
6.1b.    that Caradon were attempting to dissuade Mr Wilmot from any legal action,
6.1c.    and that Mr Wilmot had spoken to many people, including myself,
6.1d.    asking for support to allow his case to proceed to open Court.

6.2a.    It was known to myself, and I am certain to most others,
6.2b.    that some years ago a planning dispute between Caradon and an individual
6.2c.    was brought to a head
6.2d.    by that individual entering Caradon's Planning Meeting with a shotgun.

6.3a.    Caradon was held hostage,
6.3b.    and Mr Robertson, of Trago Mills, negotiated their release.

6.4a.    To my knowledge, Mr Wilmot is a determined man
6.4b.    who is not deterred by obstructions placed in his way.

6.5.    Without any professional training, he searches for a way to overcome obstacles.

6.6a.    I have heard, and I know others have heard,
6.6b.    statements made by Mr Wilmot which could be construed by threats,
6.6c.    but in the context in which I heard them,
6.6d.    and in the context of Mr Wilmot's sustained attempts to reach an open Court,
6.6e.    I was willing to welcome Mr Wilmot into my shop, and my home,
6.6f.    and to support him in any way I could,
6.6g.    both before and after 18 JUL 91.

7.1a.    I am aware that just before July 91
7.1b.    a planning officer in Durham was shot dead by an aggrieved planning applicant,
7.1c.    but Mr Wilmot was within days of reaching an open Court
7.1d.    from which it was Caradon's purpose
7.1e.    to prevent if possible Mr Wilmot from laying charges in his counterclaim.

7.2a.    In the circumstances, it is my view that the motivation of Caradon must be questioned,
7.2b.    particularly as I am convinced Mr Wilmot has a case.


8.1a.    The meeting proceeded afterwards
8.1b.    with Mr Hartridge, Mr Tolley, Mr Wilmot, and myself present.

8.2a.    At one stage Mr Hartridge replied to a question put to him by Mr Wilmot,
8.2b.    and said
8.2c.    "On speaking at the Planning Meeting
8.2d.    I did not intentionally mean to misrepresent you!"

9a.    I recall that this answer was a suprise to both Mr Tolley and Mr Wilmot,
9b.    and that Mr Tolley was keeping a note of what was said.

10.1a.    At the end of the meeting
10.1b.    it was clear that nothing of value had been achieved.

10.2a.    Caradon had no explanation for the events surrounding the planning application,
10.2b.    and Mr Wilmot was to press ahead with his charges.


11.1a.    After the meeting, I telephoned Newell, the Chief Executive,
11.1b.    and asked for a copy of the notes taken by Tolley.

11.2.    Newell said that was fine.

11.2a.    I then asked for a copy to be sent to Mr Wilmot,
11.2b.    and [Newell said] "I'll have to look through it first!",
11.2c.    to which I replied
11.2d.    "For God's sake! Don't alter it!
11.2e.    That's how we got into this mess in the first place!"

12a.    A day or so later I recieved the File Note,
12b.    and I noticed that page 2 contained the sentence
12c.    "Mr Hartridge assured Mr Wilmot
12d.    that IF he had misrepresented Mr Wilmot at the meeting
12e.    then it certainly was not intentional."

13.1a.    Having discussed the matter with Mr Wilmot,
13.1b.    I then wrote my own note on my Cornwall County Council headed notepaper,
13.1c.    which was subsequently delivered to Caradon.

13.2a.    I later recieved a reply from Mr Hartridge,
13.2b.    enclosing a copy of the File Note,
13.2c.    and emphasising the statement contained in the File Note.

Which is exactly what the Chief Planning Officer did
in his reply to Tim Wilmot's very first letter of MAY 89.

The pattern repeats itself.


14.1a.    I want to make it clear
14.1b.    that Mr Hartridge definitely stated that he had spoken,
14.1c.    and might have misrepresented Mr Wilmot by mistake.

14.2a.    I believe the suprise displayed by both Mr Tolley and Mr Wilmot
14.2b.    was due to the fact that Caradon were officially claiming
14.2c.    that Mr Hartridge had not spoken at all at the planning meeting,
14.2d.    and as he had not spoken,
14.2e.    how could he have misrepresented Mr Wilmot?

And by implication, how could he falsify the Planning Committee Minutes?

Tolley was fully aware of this false claim
( probably thought of it himself ).

15a.    My intention in writing my note
15b.    was to put on record as independently as I could
15c.    what I heard Mr Hartridge say.

16.1a.    In July 1992 I was asked by Mr Wilmot
16.2a.    if I would put my name to a private prosecution under criminal law of Mr Tolley.

16.2a.    I agreed,
16.2b.    and this was because it was clear to me
16.2c.    that statements made by Mr Tolley were untrue.

16.3.    The charges were directed at a single sentence in Mr Tolley's report of 22 NOV 90.

16.4.    I was convinced that Mr Tolley should explain the meaning of his statements.

17.1a.    The agreement between myself and Mr Wilmot was that when summons were issued,
17.1b.    Councillor Gist and myself would withdraw our names,
17.1c.    allowing Mr Wilmot to put his own name forward.

17.2a.    This was because The Magistrate's Court had recently rejected
17.2b.    a number of charges laid by Mr Wilmot
17.2c.    in a manner Mr Wilmot claimed was unlawful,
17.2d.    and which certainly gave me cause for concern,
17.2e.    and why the charge spotlighted just one sentence.

18a.    The draft charges were recieved by Liskeard Magistrates Court on 28 JUL 92,
18b.    and from that day to this
18c.    neither Councillor Gist nor myself
18d.    have heard from the Court.


19.1a.    On 02 FEB 94 Mr Wilmot visited my home
19.1b.    and showed me a copy of the 18 JUL 91 File Note
19.1c.    that he had recieved with the report made by Detective Inspector Draper in 1992.

19.2a.    It was clear to me that the text of the File Note
19.2b.    was different from my original copy,
19.2c.    and I made a clear note on my copy underneath the note I made in JUL 91.

20a.    In my opinion it is clear that the existence of texts
20b.    which vary only at the point
20c.    where Mr Hartridge is alleged to have misrepresented Mr Wilmot,
20d.    confirms that Mr Wilmot is right
20e.    to question the accuracy of the official Minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88.

21a.    I fully support Mr Wilmot's desire
21b.    for this matter to be openly explored once-and-for-all.

R. Screech

18 NOV 94


Tim Wilmot does not think any statement could be clearer
that Tolley and Hartridge were lying.

It beggars belief that Tim Wilmot has endured no less than 20 years of hell
because no-one in authority dares deal with this.

If Roger Screech can quickly work out exactly what is wrong,
what on earth was Detective Inspector Draper doing
for months during his investigation?

Link - Return to top of this webpage
Link - Screech & Gist Try To Prosecute Tolley - sequential
Link - Return to Start Menu to Screech and Gist section
Click "back" to your last webpage location

[C] 2010 - Zen asserts copyright on text, context, and design.
Go to Instructions & Contact Details at top of Start Menu for:-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. you want to use some of this site for a non-commercial purpose.
2. you want to use some of this site for a commercial purpose.
3. you want to use the design of this site for your own legal work,
    and would welcome professional assistance.
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Zen wishes to say "Thank You!" to BLOGGER