Instructions and contact details link at top of Start Menu  

Tolley Police Witness Statement

NOTE: This is the police witness statement by Tolley,
and any half competent investigator
will at once see the lies, half-truths, and evasions.


Date taken:- 28 April 1992

1.1a.    I am the Director of Administration with Caradon District Council
1.1b.    and have been so employed since NOV 90.

1.2a.    Prior to this and since 1976,
1.2b.    I occupied the post known as Solicitor to the Council ( Caradon District Council ).

2.1a.    I have been asked by Inspector DRAPER
2.1b.    to be interviewed under caution
2.1c.    in response to allegations made against me by a Mr Timothy WILMOT of Callington.

2.2a.    Following legal advice, I am reluctant to be so interviewed
2.2b.    but I am more than happy to tender my version of the sequence of events
2.2c.    in the form of this witness statement.

3.1.    I have been asked by Inspector DRAPER to speak on matters concerning Mr WILMOT.

3.2a.    Whilst I have a degree of recollection,
3.2b.    aimed at assisting me,
3.2c.    I have had made available to me
3.2d.    a large quantity of documentation held by the Council.

4.1a.    I first became aware of Mr WILMOT some time after June of 1988
4.1b.    when I became involved in discussions with the Council's Enforcement Officer
4.1c.    regarding Mr WILMOT's unauthorised change of use of land
4.1d.    at Mr WILMOT's home address, known as 'The Burrows" at Callington.

4.2a.    My primary role in these discussions
4.2b.    was to advise on the legal implications of the matter.

5a.    In consequence of the matters raised above,
5b.    I did enter into a limited amount of correspondence with him
5c.    but I do not recall actually meeting him over these matters
5d.    until 10 APR 90
5e.    when I attended Liskeard Magistrates Court
5f.    regarding his failure to comply with an enforcement notice.

6a.    I do recall the Chairman of the bench acknowledging concerns of Mr WILMOT
6b.    concerning other planning matters,
6c.    but he ruled that that court was not the forum to air those concerns.

7a.    My interpretation of the conditional discharge sentence imposed by the bench
7b.    was that the bench were satisfied Mr WILMOT believed
7c.    that there was a genuine grievance with the Planning Department.

The point is that Tim Wilmot was convincing in what he said.

8a.    In consequence of his concerns, I asked him to contact me
8b.    and I would meet him to discuss his concerns
8c.    and on 26 APR 90 at 2pm
8d.    Mr WILMOT came to see me in my office at Luxstowe House, Liskeard.

This was the first of two meetings, each lasting four hours.

Tolley left his office each time at 6pm.

Please consider if it is truly likely
that Tolley would spend all that time
on allegations he claims are "entirely without foundation".

9.1a.    I recall this meeting being a full and frank discussion
9.1b.    and I listened carefully to Mr WILMOT's allegations.

9.2a.    He was clearly concerned about what Mr Alan HARTRIDGE, the Planning Officer,
9.2a.    had said at the Planning Committee Meeting on 03 OCT 88,
9.2a.    in that he alleged that Mr HARTRIDGE had told a lie to the Planning Committee
9.2a.    when he had said that 'Mr WILMOT wished to defer his application".

Tolley knows perfectly well that Tim Wilmot heard him say "withdraw", not "defer".

9.3a.    In Mr WILMOT's mind, this was a clear lie
9.3a.    as Mr WILMOT claimed that he had met Mr HARTRIDGE earlier in the afternoon
9.3a.    and made it clear to him that he wanted a decision.

Tim Wilmot knows blatant misrepresentation when he hears it.

Tolley, in his first report dated 05 SEP 90,
fully accepted that Tim Wilmot would allow neither withdrawal or deferral,
so either in the minutes makes the minutes suspect.

10a.    Mr WILMOT's further main area of concern
10b.    was the way Mr WILMOT perceived Mr HARTRIDGE's tactics
10c.    in securing a refusal notice that had been issued later in 1989.

The same tactics used to secure revocation of Councillor Knott's house -
deceit and deviousness.

11a.    A detailed discussion continued
11b.    included in which I would have said
11c.    that I would investigate and prepare a report
11d.    but I would not have put any time limit in which to prepare the report.

Tim Wilmot is adamant that Tolley said draft report within 14 days.

Within the context of other things Tolley said on 26 APR 90,
14 days fits right in.

What is certain is that Tolley lied through his back teeth
to explain away over four months of delays,
until Tim Wilmot gave an ultimatum - and instantly got "totally inadequate" Tolley's report.

12a.    I recall pointing out to Mr WILMOT that his allegations were very serious
12b.    and that if there was substance in what he was saying,
12c.    then the Council could not afford to retain him in that position,
12d.    being in such a position of trust.

There was substance, but you concealed it, Mr Tolley.

13a.    I also recall stating
13b.    that my investigation would involve speaking to the officers concerned,
13c.    which would quite naturally have included
13d.    a Mr Neil HARVEY, the Senior Planning Assistant.

14.1a.    It is quite probable that I spoke adversely about Mr HARVEY's competency
14.1b.    because of my knowledge of it.

14.2a.    It remains probable that I did make reference to the fact
14.2b.    that the Council would be better off without Mr HARVEY.

Scapegoats are so usefull!

Harvey seemed perfectly competent to Tim Wilmot,
particularly in the way in which he documented the 29 NOV 88 agreement
in the File Note that you, Tolley,
just happened to "forget" to mention in your reports,
or hand to the police investigation.

This was the first of two meetings, each lasting four hours.

15.1a.    Part of Mr WILMOT's discussion
15.1a.    was concerning the accuracy of the Planning Committee Minutes
15.1a.    and so I seized the opportunity to send my secretary, Mrs BECKMAN,
15.1a.    to try and obtain the Committee Clerk's notes for the meeting of 03 OCT 88.

15.2a.    After an interval she returned
15.2b.    and told us that she could not find them.

15.3a.    In consequence,
15.3b.    I then asked for all the Committee Clerk's original books to be obtained.

15.4a.    When produced, I went through all the books in Mr WILMOT's presence
15.4b.    but was unable to find them for 03 OCT 88.


16.1a.    In this encounter with Mr WILMOT,
16.1b.    I found him rational, serious and coherent.

Tolley's attitude only changed after he began lying,
and Tim Wilmot stepped up the pressure on him as a result,
ending in Tolley being broken publicly
by three words "LIAR & PERJURER!"

16.2a.    He left at the end of the meeting with my assurance
16.2b.    that I would investigate and communicate with him in due course.

Tim Wilmot has a crystal clear memory of Tolley saying
that he would produce a draft report on Tim Wilmot's allegations
within 14 days.

Tim Wilmot suggests that it demonstrates his tolerance
that it took him four months and an ultimatum
before he received Tolley's draft report.

It spite of Tim Wilmot lambasting it as "totally inadequate",
Tolley did not alter a single word,
and it's lies provided the basis
for the whitewashing of the Chief Planning Officer on 29 NOV 90.

17.1a.    I set about investigating the matter in my normal way
17.1b.    and one of my first moves was to examine the planning file.

17.2a.    I discovered minimal documented activity
17.2b.    between the October decision
17.2c.    and the reference back to the Planning Committee on 06 FEB 89,
17.2d.    when a refusal notice was issued.

Tim Wilmot knows that Harvey's File Note dated 29 NOV 88
was being stripped from the planning file later in 1990 and in 1991,
so Tim Wilmot suggests Tolley
almost certainly would have seen it in APR 90,
seen that it did not fit into his cover-up fabrication,
and decided to ignore it altogether.

18a.    Despite the fact that Mr WILMOT was present on 03 OCT 88,
18b.    I would have expected written notification to have been sent to Mr WILMOT
18c.    advising him of the Committee's decision.

19a.    My investigation also included speaking
19b.    to a number of persons with the Council concerning this matter.

20.1.    I subsequently prepared a report and forwarded a copy to Mr WILMOT.

20.2.    The report is dated 5th September 1990.

20.3.    I have since handed a copy of my report to Inspector DRAPER(***)

21.1a.    He made contact with me following receipt of my report
21.1b.    and in consequence, he came to Luxstowe House on 17 SEP 90.

21.2.    He was clearly dissatisfied with my findings.

22.1a.    He dismissed my findings as not having established the truth
22.1b.    and came up with a further complaint;
22.1c.    i.e. that he had been granted planning permission on 03 OCT 88.

22.2.    He was still convinced that Mr HARTRIDGE had falsified the Minutes.

22.3a.    He stood by all his allegations
22.3b.    despite a long and detailed explanation by myself
22.3c.    that there was nothing to substantiate his allegations.

22.4a.    I acknowledged that there were some procedural shortcomings
22.4b.    but nothing more.

23a.    These shortcomings were:-

23b.    The absence of a formal letter advising him
23c.    of the Planning Committee's decision of 03 OCT 88.

23d.    A delay between the Planning Committee Meeting of 06 FEB 89,
23e.    and the issue of the Refusal Notice on the 29th March 1989.

23f.    That Mr WILMOT had not been told
23g.    that the matter was being put back to the Planning Committee on 06 FEB 89.

24a.    I was satisfied that I had carried out a full and thorough investigation
24b.    into Mr WILMOT's allegations
24c.    though I could clearly see it had not satisfied him.

25a.    Following this, the situation started warming up
25b.    and I became aware of Mr WILMOT having gone public,
25c.    making adverse comments and allegations against Mr HARTRIDGE.

26.1a.    I sent a copy of my report (T 11)
26.1b.    to members of the Planning Committee
26.1c.    and on 29 NOV 90,
26.1d.    a summary was presented to the Planning Services Committee,
26.1e.    together with a further copy of the report (***).

26.2.    Copies of these documents were also sent to Mr WILMOT.


27.1a.    With regard to the document (***),
27.1b.    I am aware that Mr WILMOT has expressed dissatisfaction with the summary,
27.1c.    particularly regarding paragraph 5 relating to who dealt with the application.

27.2a.    I said that
27.2b.    the application was dealt with by his staff
27.2c.    and that there was no evidence whatsoever to support Mr WILMOT's contention
27.2d.    that the Planning Officer took any action himself
27.2e.    in relation to the application.

27.3.    I was in fact referring to the handling of the application by the Planning Department.

27.4a.    Mr WILMOT's allegation was
27.4b.    that the Planning Officer had taken a personal involvement
27.4c.    in the processing of the application.

27.5a.    The result of my investigation established
27.5b.    that it was dealt with by his staff.

27.6a.    I had not intended to infer
27.6b.    that the Planning Officer had not spoken
27.6c.    on the application at the Planning Committee Meeting on 03 OCT 88.

Tolley knew perfectly well what Tim Wilmot was driving at,
and this wriggling is pathetic.

The fact remains that in the early part of the cover-up,
Caradon did maintain that the Chief Planning Officer had not spoken,
and Tolley, if not the author, was fully aware of it.

See what Screech says on "did not speak".


28.1a.    Subsequent to this meeting on 29 NOV 90,
28.1b.    I also became the victim of allegations of impropriety.

28.2a.    Public Meetings were held by Mr WILMOT
28.2b.    and he developed into parading through the streets with placards,
28.2c.    denouncing Mr HARTRIDGE, Councillor PENGELLY of Callington and myself.

29a.    It was necessary for me to write to Mr WILMOT
29b.    in the latter part of 1990 warning him
29c.    of the legal implications of issuing defamatory statements.

30.1a.    I continued to have handed to me by the Chief Executive,
30.1b.    letters from Mr WILMOT which enabled me to keep up-to-date with events.

30.2a.    I also had letters, or copy letters passed to me, from the Planning department
30.2b.    and I continued to retain these copies.

30.3a.    Having fulfilled my role,
30.3b.    I did nothing with these letters.

31.1a.    On the evening of the 01 MAY 91,
31.1b.    I became aware
31.1c.    that Mr WILMOT had been displaying a placard in Callington
31.1d.    accusing Councillor PENGELLY,
31.1e.    Mr HARTRIDGE and myself
31.1f.    of serious planning offences.

31.2a.    This was on the eve of the local government elections,
31.2b.    and it was necessary for me to secure a County Court injunction
31.2c.    which was served on him on 02 MAY 91.

32.1a.    I was later invited to attend a meeting at Luxstowe House at Liskeard
32.1b.    where Mr WILMOT, Mr HARTRIDGE, Councillor SCREECH and myself met.

32.2.    This was on 18 JUL 91.

32.3a.    The discussion was full and frank
32.3b.    but nothing was effectively resolved.

32.4a.    I recall taking notes of the meeting
32.4b.    and I have handed a copy to Inspector DRAPER (***).

Tolley made a serious error here,
because the File Note he handed Draper
was a different draft
from that given to Tim Wilmot and Roger Screech after 18 JUL 91.

The differences yet again confirms sensitivity
over what the Chief Planning Officer really said on 03 OCT 88.

32.5a.    I do recall Alan HARTRIDGE being quite conciliatory at this meeting
32.5b.    and admitting that had he said something on 03 OCT 88,
32.5c.    that Mr WILMOT had interpreted as being misrepresentative,
32.5d.    then it had not been done intentionally
32.5e.    and it would not preclude any further application for planning permission.

32.6.    I took the view that nothing had been resolved at this meeting.

33a.    Subsequent to this meeting of the 18 JUL,
33b.    Mr WILMOT continued his campaign against officers of the Council
33c.    with his letters and placard waving.


34.1a.    I have continued to collate these matters
34.1b.    but with the exception of a meeting
34.1c.    between the Chief Executive, Mr HARTRIDGE, the Chairman of the Council and myself
34.1d.    held in October/November time of 1991
34.1e.    geared towards exploring the possibility of opening any new dialogue with Mr WILMOT,
34.1f.    nothing more was pursued
34.1g.    as our view was that we had done all that could be done
34.1h.    and progress was not being made.

Here is evidence of the Emergency Committee,
of which nothing was known
until Tim Wilmot cross-examined Eric Distin, Caradon Chairman,
at Plymouth Crown Court in 1993.

Note that Natural Justice is entirely absent,
as three of the four members of the committee
are accused by Tim Wilmot of serious criminal offences.

34.2.    No realistic solution was forthcoming.

Completely untrue.

Eric Distin had asked Vivian Carne, an independent solicitor in Callington,
to meet Tim Wilmot and see if a way forward could be found.

Note that Tolley has "forgotten" to mention to Draper
that it was he who briefed Carne.

Tolley has also "forgotten" to mention to Draper
that he was 25% of the Emergency Committee
that refused to accept Carne's recommendation to Caradon District Council
that Tim Wilmot have the approval position on the evening of 03 OCT 88 restored
( the refusal removed ).

As this totally demolished Caradon's cover-up,
it was not seen as a "realistic solution",
so the lying continued.


35.1a.    Concerning the affidavit dated the 02 MAY 91,
35.1b.    I understand that Mr WILMOT has alleged
35.1c.    that the document is in some way perjured.

Tolley knows it is a flimsy tissue of lies.

35.2a.    I utterly refute this
35.2b.    and stand by the whole content of the document.

35.3a.    I have been shown a copy of the affidavit
35.3b.    and I am satisfied that it is a true copy of the affidavit in question.

36.1a.    Throughout much of the saga with Mr WILMOT,
36.1b.    I have been the victim
36.1c.    of a sustained barrage of libellous comments from Mr WILMOT.

Caradon District Council had opportunity
to answer Tim Wilmot's five counterclaim charges,
but chose to pay the Pengelly Pound
rather than defend their honour and reputation.

36.2a.    This has caused me considerable distress
36.2b.    and I feel it has all been unwarranted.

36.3a.    I feel it is particularly ironic
36.3b.    bearing in mind the time and effort
36.3c.    I put into looking into his allegations.



Anyone with half an ounce of brain can see how weak this statement is,
and will no doubt wonder how a Detective Inspector ever came to write it.

The number of qustions that should have been asked and answered!

Link - Return to top of this webpage
Link - Return to Start Menu to Tolley 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