Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 139)
TUESDAY 30 JUNE 1998
COUNCILLOR STEPHEN
MURPHY AND
MR DAVID
WILMOT
120. Well, it is not, it is the public paying
the premiums. Do you know why this case was not settled earlier?
If you had a great case why did you not fight it to the bitter
end? If you had a poor case why was it not settled straight away?
(Councillor Murphy) Because at the end of the day
if we had wanted to fight the case to the bitter end on the figure
that I have been talking to you about here today when the insurers
were saying they were quickly approaching the maximum amount that
they felt they would cover us for, we were possibly looking at
doubling that figure at the end of the day to complete this case.
Those were the kinds of figures that the legal people and the
barristers were talking to us about.
121. Who has been negligent? The police authority?
The insurers? The public have not been because they are the payers.
Who has got this wrong?
(Councillor Murphy) I would say the Legal Aid system
is the one that has been negligible because that is the system
that at the end of the day has sucked all the money out of the
premiums and would have sucked the money out of the public funds
as well.
Chairman
122. Can I just pursue with Mr Wilmot one other
matter. In your letter to us, Mr Wilmot, you were at pains to
assure us that none of this had anything to do with Stalker, the
Taylor case was unrelated to the Stalker case. Have you read Mr
Stalker's book on the subject?
(Mr Wilmot) No.
123. That is rather a large omission considering
it has caused you so much pain.
(Mr Wilmot) This case has twisted round my professional
career. I was in West Yorkshire when Colin Sampson was appointed
to take over from Stalker. We had a rule that I would not get
involved in any shape or form with this investigation. Then I
transferred and when Stalker retired I took his position in Manchester
as the Deputy Chief. I was Deputy Chief of West Yorkshire and
transferred across on appointment as Deputy of Greater Manchester.
I have lived with this case but at the side, if I can put it that
way.
124. When did you become Deputy Chief Constable
of Greater Manchester?
(Mr Wilmot) 1987.
125. You are certainly not responsible for the
events that led to this, are you, you were elsewhere at the time?
(Mr Wilmot) I have had no involvement whatsoever with
either the Stalker inquiry or the Taylor inquiry other than picking
the tab up as Chief when it came to the civil case and now dealing
with this Committee answering the questions. What I can say is
that the insurance company, having expended vast sums of money
to employ whole teams of lawyers to go through the papers to give
us advice as to what action to take in the civil courts, one of
the allegations made in the plaintiff's case was that there was
an attack on him to have a go at Stalker. That was vigorously
defended throughout. My advice all the way through is that there
is absolutely no connection other than the personalities. There
is obviously a connection with personalities because Stalker knew
Taylor and Taylor knew Stalker, but the two cases are really completely
separate.
126. Can I, if only for the historical record,
commend Mr Stalker's book to you because it would help you to
understand why a lot of people who are not Greater Manchester
police officers believe there is a connection. In fact, Mr Stalker
was a Greater Manchester police officer and he believed there
was a connection between the two. Can I just put it to you that
he makes out really quite a plausible case to suggest that the
two were related.
(Mr Wilmot) I have lived with this civil action and
the advice from our lawyers and all the way through we have vigorously
defended that there was any connection at all. That was part of
our defence against the allegations made in the civil case.
127. Yes. I hear what you say. I also recognise
that you were not around at the time when this got started. To
a layman looking at it the coincidence arises from the timing.
There is Mr Stalker off on this controversial inquiry in Northern
Ireland and suddenly this enormous investigation into his friends
and associates breaks out back home. Can you see how a layman
might come to the conclusion that all these skilled lawyers have
not come to?
(Mr Wilmot) No, because the evidence that has been
put before me says that there is no connection.
128. Mr Stalker was asked about his connection
with Taylor, was he not? When he was questioned, as he was, he
was questioned about his connection with Taylor.
(Mr Wilmot) The actual intimate details of both the
Northern Ireland inquiry and the disciplinary inquiry into Mr
Stalker is not within my competence. All I can advise you is what
I was advised when we were fighting, the Office of the Chief Constable
was fighting, the civil action brought by Taylor and the other
three plaintiffs. The legal advice that I was given was "you
strongly resist any suggestion that the two cases are connected".
That is what all the evidence brought before me indicated.
129. I am sure that is what the lawyers advised
and you are quite right, I am sure, to take that lawyers' advice
but you are an intelligent man, Mr Wilmot, and you can see where
this has come from, can you not?
(Mr Wilmot) I believe my lawyers. They are men of
integrity and they have spent a great deal of time investigating
the civil claims made by Mr Taylor and others. We were fiercely
resisting the suggestion that there was a connection between the
two.
130. I understand the argument that the investigation
into Mr Taylor and his associates entirely related to things that
they were doing but I am hoping you can understand the opposing
argument that this sudden interest in Mr Taylor, which was very,
very intensive, coincided with Mr Stalker's difficulties in Northern
Ireland and prior to that no-one seemed at all interested in Mr
Taylor.
(Mr Wilmot) I can only say what I have said, for the
sake of repeating myself, other than to go through the whole of
the civil action which we have not got the time to do and I have
not got the knowledge to put before this Committee.
131. One way of short-circuiting the process
would be for you to read Mr Stalker's book.
(Mr Wilmot) Mr Taylor also wrote a book and I have
not read that. That would be a more balanced affair.
132. Perhaps you can wait for your retirement
but I do commend it to you.
(Mr Wilmot) I have no intentions of writing a book
at this stage.
Mr Winnick
133. Mr Wilmot, it is very difficult for any
layman, certainly I imagine for my colleagues and certainly myself,
to disconnect the Taylor case from the Stalker inquiry, the two
seem so linked that it is simply impossible to believe that there
would ever have been a Taylor case and the matter we are examining
had it not been for the background of the Stalker inquiry but
you say there is no reason to believe that at all.
(Mr Wilmot) The Taylor inquiry started from, as I
understand it, a drug investigation. Then it went on to charges
in terms of alleged fraud. That case was dismissed in the Crown
Court. That was against Mr Taylor. During the course of that inquiry
there was a connection discovered between Mr Stalker and Mr Taylor.
That is a factor. Everyone accepts that is true. There was a relationship.
I am not going to say what that relationship was.
134. Without re-opening the whole question which
would serve no purpose at this particular stage, I stick to my
view that in the eyes of most people, but not yourself, they are
very much linked. You say in your letter of 18 May to the Committee
that it was "desirable to bring the whole matter [that is,
the court case] to a final conclusion and avoid further uninformed
speculation." Would you not accept that really the speculation
has continued?
(Mr Wilmot) No. I have lived and worked in Manchester
since this case was settled. There was a huge amount of publicity
on the settlement. There were figures of £1 million bandied
about. The whole of Mr Taylor's aspect and ours was put that it
was a commercial decision and the police still refuted that. Since
then there has been nothing. The first time that anything has
ever arisen about the Taylor inquiry, to my knowledge, in the
Manchester area and anywhere else, is when your press statement
came out saying that I had been asked to appear before this Committee.
This was the first time in three years that anything had ever
been mentioned anywhere, in my presence or to my knowledge, of
the Taylor inquiry.
135. Do you not think it is quite legitimate
for us to look into this matter, when quite clearly a very substantial
amount of money has been paid out and there has been no public
accountability whatsoever?
(Mr Wilmot) It is not for me to query the competence
of this Committee. The Committee has its own competence.
136. Quite apart from this inquiry at the moment,
there has been no speculation in Manchester at all about the sums
of money involved?
(Mr Wilmot) Since the case concluded, and there was
speculation in the press at that time, (press releases are available),
I have not heard of any speculation, no.
137. I find it difficult to believe that everyone
is now more-or-less happy—
(Mr Wilmot) I did not say that.
138. Councillor Murphy looks rather puzzled.
I would have thought that people in Manchester who take an interest
in public affairs would like to know how much money was paid out.
Am I wrong, Councillor Murphy?
(Councillor Murphy) I have not had any queries or
questions after the flood of enquiries that were based on press
speculation and a number of questions that were raised in, I would
say, probably a couple of weeks after the conclusion. Then after
that we have had nothing. It has been quiet until you have raised
the issue again.
Chairman
139. We have started it all up again, dear oh
dear.
(Councillor Murphy) So at the end of the day I would
say you are to blame really, not us.
| 
