-====================================================-By mid 1992,
it was clear to Caradon District Councillor, Tony Knott,
Cornwall County and Callington Town Councillor, Roger Screech,
and Callington Councillor and Portreeve, Jeremy Gist,
that there was something very seriously wrong.
This demonstrates that Tim Wilmot was not the lone figure
that Detective Inspector Draper describes in his Police Report to the CPS,
and furthermore shows the difficulties
that fear of abuse of power
by a local authority, such as Caradon District Council, causes.
It was never a matter of "Is it true?",
because everyone knew the allegations were true -
"How do we get the allegations to a place of safety
where people of integrity and honesty will deal with it properly!"
Tim Wilmot had already secured the conviction of Tolley, Caradon's lying solicitor,
for assaulting him four times in a public street -
just like a common lout,
and not at all the Man of Law he was trained to be.
Tim Wilmot knew that he could break him at any time,
and the truth is that such was his fear,
Tolley later became seriously ill, and retired early -
no doubt with a suitably large golden handshake.
Tim Wilmot had been doing a great deal of research
in the University of Plymouth's Law Library.
Tim Wilmot had long ago realised
that the police were a broken reed supporting Caradon,
and he decided to cleanse the Augean Stables himself.
Tim Wilmot drew up conspiracy charges
against Tolley, Hartridge, Newell, and Pengelly,
and he laid information before Liskeard Magistrates -
the same Court that considered four assualts upon me by Tolley -
who pleaded 'Not guilty!' -
as worthy only of a Conditional Discharge.
They spent weeks considering it
( no doubt consulting with other parties ),
before calling Tim Wilmot in
to tell him their decision that no summons was to be issued.
The Clerk, Christopher Male, had verbally promised that he would see
that Tim Wilmot got written reasons
for any of the charges rejected,
saying that there was no obligation for the Court to do so,
but a requirement to do so was coming into force soon,
and he wanted to do so in this case.
That promise was dishonoured.
Tim Wilmot spoke with Knott, Screech, and Gist, amongst others,
and we all knew perfectly well that we were being buggered about yet again.
Tim Wilmot therefore drew up a charge against Tolley
under the criminal conspiracy law
that was child's play to prove.
The idea was to focus on a single line of a single report
that was self-evidently a blatant lie by Tolley
that everyone recognised as being a lie,
and use it as a wedge to get past Authority's blocking tactics.
To make it even more effective,
Tim Wilmot asked Councillor Knott to put his name to it,
and to sign a supporting document,
as the Court might be less inclined to bugger about a Councillor.
Initially he agreed to do so if Screech and Gist did so too,
but after they agreed,
he backed out as he was scared stiff of Hartridge taking revenge,
and in fact Hartridge later bulldozed Knott's home anyway.
To their ever-lasting credit,
both Screech and Gist nonetheless signed,
and their document below is important
as it establishes beyond doubt
that Tim Wilmot was in no way a lone, obsessed individual,
but in fact simply a whistleblower
who had serious support from two local Councillors
willing to put their name to two conspiracy charges in the Public Interest.
No-one does that
unless they are absolutely certain the allegations are substantive,
because they open themselves to legal action and claims for damages.
Needless to say,
Liskeard Magistrates did not issue summonses
in their usual "We are in no way biased manner!"
They simply ignored it.
Which is why,
when Tim Wilmot took a large placard accusing the Court of corruption,
and walked around the Court on a day it was sitting,
he was not arrested!
They knew perfectly well that if Tim Wilmot was arrested and charged,
that his defence would blow both themselves and Caradon out of the water -
which is what Tim Wilmot went there to prove with that placard. -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=- The Two Charges against Tolley -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=-
MICHAEL GREGORY TOLLEY - CONSPIRACY
Statement of OFFENCE - Conspiracy contrary to S1 CLA 1977
Particulars of offence.
That Michael Gregory Tolley,
in his professional capacity
as Director of Administration with Caradon District Council,
did conspire with another or others
on a day or days unknown
to place before the Planning Services Committee of 29 NOV 90
a report dated 22 NOV 90,
which he knew contained a statement, or statements,
which were untrue,
and with which he intended to decieve and defraud that Committee in general,
and Tim Wilmot in particular,
of the truth regarding Tim Wilmot's allegations
over the alleged falsification of the official minutes
of the Planning Committee Meeting of the 03 OCT 88,
and subsequent events,
contrary to Section One of the Criminal Law Act 1977.
Statement of OFFENCE - Conspiracy contrary to S5(2) CLA 1977
Particulars of offence.
As in Count One, but contrary to S5(2) CLA 1977
[ stamped recieved Liskeard Magistrates Clerk's Office 28 JUL 92 ] -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=- SUPPORTING DOCUMENT TO THE CHARGE - Note -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=-This document was intended
to put flesh on the bones of the charges against Tolley
BEFORE the deposition Hearing took place.
It sets out what any reasonable person can see
as a framework for several criminal offences
committed by Tolley
Which makes the Court's reply at the bottom of this webpage
somewhat hard to believe -
particularly when it is addressed to Tim Wilmot,
and not Screech and Gist. -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=- SUPPORTING DOCUMENT TO THE CHARGE -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=-1a.
The intent - to protect Alan Hartridge from close examination1b.
upon Tim Wilmot's allegation that Hartridge,1c.
having misrepresented Tim Wilmot1d.
in an attempt to see a planning application withdrawn,1e.
ordered the official minutes of the Planning Committee to be altered,1f.
removing the misrepresentation from the record.2.1a.
The means - the drawing up by Michael Tolley2.1b.
of two written reports, dated 5 SEP 90, and 22 NOV 90.2.2a.
Both reports contain statements worthy of critical cross-examination2.2b.
( as do some extraordinary omissions of ascertained and ascertainable fact ),2.2c.
but for the purposes of this charge2.2d.
we draw attention to one statement:-2.3a.
"The application was dealt with by his staff2.3b.
and there is no evidence whatsoever to support Mr Wilmot's contention2.3c.
that the Planning Officer took any action 2.3d.
in relation to the application."3a.
We are satisfied that the Official Minutes clearly show3b.
that the Planning Officer spoke,3c.
and further that Mr Tolley was aware that he had spoken.4a.
In view of this, Mr Tolley's statement4b.
"there is no evidence whatsoever"4c.
seems at variance with the facts.5a.
We believe that public examination of this single sentence5b.
will rapidly reveal the truth behind the matter.6a.
We are aware that Section One Conspiracy6b.
must involve the commission of a criminal act -6c.
we assume that if it was Mr Tolley's intent6d.
to deliberately decieve a Public Committee,6e.
and in so doing protect a fellow officer from criminal proceedings,6f.
at least one criminal offence would have been committed.7a.
Equally, for the Common Law Conspiracy under Section Five,7b.
it is sufficient to prove dishonesty.8a.
In the absence of actions by any of the accused8b.
to answer any of the alleged offences,8c.
it does appear that something dishonest may have occurred.9.
Losses incurred - The Public has been deprived of the truth of the matter.10a.
If Tim Wilmot's allegations are proved,10b.
then we understand10c.
that he will be making a consequential loss claim for over £400,000,10d.
for loss of property and earnings,10e.
that this sum will increase shortly by perhaps £200,000 more10f.
when he loses his next three properties,10g.
and that no figure has been arrived at10h.
for personal suffering for an extended period.11a.
We are aware that it is a clear principle at Law11b.
that the party whuch causes another loss11c.
shall be liable to pay compensation. -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=- PRO BONO PUBLICO - Notes -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=-The next document was drawn up
for Screech and Gist to sign in the Public Interest,
and it very clearly shows
what they felt about Caradon District Council's actions. -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=- PRO BONO PUBLICO - IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=-1a.
We, the undersigned, 1b.
being citizens and/or Councillor resident in the District of Caradon,1c.
desire to express publicly our concern1d.
regarding the handling at all levels1e.
of Tim Wilmot's allegations about Caradon District Council.2.
We are not satisfied with Caradon's own response,3a.
We are particularly concerned3b.
that Tim Wilmot's allegations of conspiracy3c.
( some sixteen seperate charges )3d.
were rejected by Liskeard Magistrates Court3e.
without any reason given3f.
( although we understand that the Clerk3g.
had verbally promised him3h.
that the reasons would be given in writing ).4a.
We believe that the Public Interest would be best served4b.
were those who are accused4c.
face public examination in open Court for the first time4d.
and three years of uncertainty be brought to an end.5a.
We cannot but notice the fact5b.
that Caradon District Council faced a counterclaim5c.
to its temporary Injunction dated 2 MAY 915d.
( in which which Tim Wilmot had filed5e.
five very serious charges against Clifford Gerald Pengelly -5f.
and by implication the others accused )5g.
and that Caradon had paid the sum claimed,5h.
without admission of liability,5i.
rather than try the issue.6a.
The core of the matter is whether or not Alan Hartridge,6b.
in his capacity as Planning Officer,6c.
ordered the falsification of the official minutes6d.
to the Planning Committee Meeting of the 3rd October 19886e.
as Tim Wilmot alleges.7a.
We cannot but be impressed by the fact7b.
that Tim Wilmot has consistently maintained over a lengthy period7c.
that falsification has taken place7d.
and that documentary evidence seems to strongly suggest7e.
that all is not well with the Minutes of that Meeting.8a.
The fact that Caradon discovered the original minute notes to be missing8b.
some eleven months after Tim Wilmot first alleged falsification8c.
is of particular concern.9a.
Further, one of the undersigned, Councillor Roger Screech,9b.
was present at a meeting requested by Caradon9c.
a few days before Tim Wilmot filed his counterclaim;9d.
he has recorded in writing a statement made by Alan Hartridge9e.
in reply to a question from Tim Wilmot -9f.
"On speaking at the Planning Meeting,9g.
I did not intentionally mean to misrepresent [you]."10a.
Now the point is10b.
that we understand that it is Caradon's official position10c.
that Alan Hartridge did NOT speak.11a.
Further, the file note of that meeting,11b.
made by another of the accused, Michael Tolley,11c.
records the word IF ( in capital letters and underlined )11d.
at the beginning of Mr Hartridge's sentence.12.
The two positions are clearly totally incompatible.13.
Either Mr Hartridge spoke or he did not.14.
He either used the word 'if' or he did not.15a.
If he did not,15b.
then we believe that the question of how it appeared upon a file note15c.
should be examined in open Court.16a.
Every attempt to air these issues in the open16b.
have been blocked.17.
We believe that this is contrary to the Public Interest.18a.
It is clear to us18b.
that there are parts of this story18c.
that remain concealed from public examination.19a.
As it is clear19b.
that Caradon will not voluntarily give evidence19c.
before the Public it serves,19d.
we believe that it is our duty19e.
to bring this issue before the Court19f.
and formally request that the Court issue summonses19g.
for the charges enclosed.20a. We would request that the Court,20b. should it reject our application,20c. explain in some detail,20d. why rejection has taken place.
Signed R Screech, CC. 23 July 1992
J Gist, Portreeve. 23 July 1992 -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=- LISKEARD MAGISTRATES REPLY - Note -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=-The whole point of the charge was
that it was NOT in Tim Wilmot's name
because he was clearly being blocked.
Screech and Gist, at the bottom of PRO BONO PUBLICO above, clearly stated:-
20a. We would request that the Court,
20b. should it reject our application,
20c. explain in some detail,
20d. why rejection has taken place.
One wonders why the Court addressed the reply to Tim Wilmot?
The Court Decision was on a standard sheet of A4
that was not headed, dated, or signed.
In Tim Wilmot's opinion,
it cannot possibly be a proper response.
It was clear to Tim Wilmot
that once again, he was being "blocked",
and his supporting Councillors fully agreed,
but had no idea how to proceed further. -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=- LISKEARD MAGISTRATES REPLY -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=-Mr Wilmot:
This Court has spent a long time considering the facts
you have placed before us.
You have applied for the issue of process
upon an allegation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.
An essential ingredient of such a conspiracy
is the intention to commit a criminal offence or offences.
I am unable to find that there was a criminal offence
and in the circumstances have no alternative
but to refuse the issue of process in this matter. -====================================================-Tim Wilmot finds three faults with this document:-
not on headed paper,
Tim Wilmot would be glad to recieve comment
upon the legality of such a reply
to what was a very serious criminal charge against a public officer. -====================================================-Link - Return to top of this webpage -====================================================-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.
||Zen wishes to say "Thank You!" to