The shire spent at least $5380 on legal fees in November 2018 when it prosecuted an English tourist who parked facing the wrong way in Stirling Terrace (legal in the UK) to obtain a $60 fine – but failed to recoup costs.

The shire lost a further $36,500 in legal fees last October when it prosecuted a Dumbarton resident for an alleged dog attack on sheep only to have a magistrate call the shire’s case “absolutely shocking” and “duplicitous” and warn she would order an acquittal if the shire didn’t withdraw its court action.

The day after last month’s Tuesday evening council meeting, The Herald sent President Rayner five written questions:

• Who authorised the expenditure of $699,481 over that period?
• Did the council approve the spending of the money before it was spent?
• How much of the $699,481 was recouped?
• Why did the shire use nine different law firms?
• Do you have any other comment about this expenditure?

A response was sought by 5pm on the Friday to meet September Herald production deadlines.

President Rayner responded at 3.23pm on the Saturday.

“In relation to legal expenses your question includes the legal expenses that you have reported on frequently over the last four years and you have substantial information available already on those expenses,” President Rayner said.

“So in relation to the balance of the legal expenses which approximate $45,000 per year this includes planning advice and SAT (State Administrative Tribunal) representation, advice on implications of the South West Native Title Settlement on shire lands, preparation of legal documents, and routine enforcement and prosecution matters.

“This can include matters like dog attacks and ignoring total fire bans.

“In another example the shire was obliged under the Local Government Act to take enforcement action in SAT for non-compliance by a councillor with Standards Panel Orders.

“Council does not become involved in engaging lawyers except when council is contemplating civil action or needs specific legal advice.

“Enforcement of State laws, local laws and planning instruments is an administrative matter, and enforcement and prosecution is not and should not be a political decision.

“The CEO (Stan Scott) has delegation to engage lawyers appropriate to the task at hand.

“For example there is a single law firm providing advice to several local governments on the same matter so it is much cheaper to share those legal expenses.”

President Rayner failed to respond to a repeated Herald request to reveal how much of the $699,481 spent on lawyers was recouped.

The shire also spent a further $11,900 this year on a private investigator to examine a Shire Code of Conduct complaint against President Rayner and Mr Scott.

This matter is now under internal Freedom of Information review and potential appeal.

Last month’s car-jack video failure followed an incident last October when a local schoolgirl went missing in Duidgee Park in an area monitored by a faulty shire camera.

The camera – which frequently jammed in one position for long periods or pointed at roofs and trees – only by accident flicked past a vehicle licence plate that enabled police to locate the unharmed girl in Perth.

The shire wrote in its March Toodyay Community Newsletter that it had obtained a $300,000 Federal Government grant to upgrade the town’s video security network.

The money was announced by local Federal MP and Liberal Attorney-General Christian Porter eight weeks before Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government was re-elected in a tightly fought campaign.

“No one should have to fear for their safety,”Mr Porter said in his announcement.

The shire’s March newsletter said contracts had been signed and the project “would commence in the near future”.

All shire CCTV cameras – except those with licence plate recognition – would be replaced, and an additional three new cameras installed on new poles.

“The system will run on a new dedicated server with the police station receiving a new monitor,” the shire said.

However, when the shire was asked to provide video footage of last month’s car-jacking, it was revealed that none of the shire’s cameras were working and had all been out of action for “a few months”.

Further inquiries revealed that local police no longer had access to any street camera vision and had dismantled their equipment until a new shire monitor is installed.

It is understood that a computer server at the shire’s administration centre in Fiennes Street failed several weeks ago.

The shire decided not to spend money on replacing the faulty equipment and chose instead to wait until its new $300,000 system is installed.

It said the presence of street cameras deterred crime, regardless of whether they worked or not.

Shire President Brian Rayner was asked the following Herald questions last month:

• How long has this camera (at the car-jacking) been out of action?
• When will it be repaired?
• How many other shire video security cameras are not working?
• How long have they been out of action?
• When will they be repaired?
• How has this been allowed to happen?
• Who is responsible for this?
• What message do you have to allay local businesses and community concerns about public safety in our streets and parks when there is substantial evidence that shire video security cameras have not worked properly since at least 2014?

He responded:

“As you know the Shire of Toodyay was successful in obtaining a $300,000 grant to upgrade its CCTV infrastructure.

“This work is underway at present and we expect the work to be largely complete by the end of September.

“The project will upgrade CCTV infrastructure in public and community spaces throughout the Town Centre.

“The project will see the replacement of 17 old external CCTV cameras, installation of 22 new CCTV cameras for a total network of 41 cameras, more than double the old network.

“It will also include new five-metre‘break back’ poles in various key locations around the community.

“All old CCTV and wireless links will be decommissioned, with a newly designed ‘end-to-end’ wireless link being supplied and installed between each device and CCTV head end.

“This project is being delivered as a partnership between Toodyay Police, Safer Toodyay, the Shire of Toodyay and Telstra.

“During the course of the installation some CCTV infrastructure may not be working.

“I do not intend to comment on which cameras or when.

“CCTV performs a role in detecting and preventing crime.

“I have no intention of undermining the deterrence by commenting on which cameras may or may not be out of action and at what time during the implementation process.”

An agenda item titled “Sanction Orders” at last month’s council meeting said President Rayner had been found by the Local Government Standards Panel to have breached the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 in his reply to Mr Graham at the April 2018 council meeting.

The breach related to President Rayner attributing the comments to the Toodyay Progress Association.

The Standards Panel ordered President Rayner to attend the council meeting and make a public apology without any further comment or remarks.

The apology was ordered to be made immediately after public question time.

“The Panel found that I breached the shire’s Standing Orders Local law 2008 Regulation 4 of the said Conduct Rules in that such attribution was objectionable,” President Rayner said.

“I accept that I should not have attributed the relevant comments to the Toodyay Progress Association.

“I now apologise to the Toodyay Progress Association”.

The Toodyay Shire Council voted 7-1 in July (Cr Ben Bell opposed) to allow Mr Wakeman to keep two horses subject to 10 conditions and four ‘advice notes’.

These include an amended environment and horse management plan, a manure storage area with a waterproof cover and no run-off or leaching into groundwater, regular collection of unused feed, all remnant vegetation on the property to be fenced off from the horses and a recommendation that they be stabled for 12½ hours every day.

“There are other people with horses living all around me and none of them has to do any of this stuff,” Mr Wakeman said.

“How many others have had to submit horse management plans?”

Mr Wakeman said he bought his Laterite Way property in 2011 after being told by a staff member at the shire front counter that he could keep two horses on it.

“She looked up the address on the shire computer and told me two horses,” he said.

“I was living in Perth at the time and was looking around to buy a place for two horses so that my partner and I could ride together instead of one of us having to stay home.”

Mr Wakeman said he bought the property in Coondle’s Sanctuary Park rural residential subdivision but a neighbour objected when he installed white ‘sighter’ wiring inside his boundary to prevent his horses accidentally injuring themselves on an existing wire fence.

“The neighbour complained to the shire, and Planning Officer Hugo de Vos came out to take a look,” Mr Wakeman said.

“He said everything seemed OK and said all I had to do was put in a management plan for my two horses, which I did.”

Approval recommended

SHIRE records show that Mr de Vos recommended that Mr Wakeman’s application for retrospective planning approval at a March 2014 council meeting be granted.

Mr de Vos recommended that the council use its discretion to vary a ‘recommended stocking rate’ to allow two horses to be kept.

“The current process of determining stocking rates is flawed,” he reported to the council.

“The area in question (rural residential) is currently the subject of numerous stocking rate applications.

“There are also instances where horses are already present on properties and thus an issue with compliance.

“It is considered that there is sufficient justification to support this proposal.”

Former shire deputy president Bethan Lloyd, seconded by former Cr Sally Craddock, moved to defer a decision until the council received a horse management plan and an environmental report, and developed a stocking rate policy, but the motion was defeated 3-6.

Former Cr Chris Firns then moved to refuse Mr Wakeman’s application, which was carried 9-0 without discussion or any published reason for rejecting the shire officer’s recommendation.

Mr Wakeman applied to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for a review but this was dismissed a year later.

$12,000 fine

He was fined $12,000 by the shire in November 2017 for keeping two horses on his property.

Mr Wakeman lodged a second SAT appeal in February this year but it was dismissed for being four years too late.

He tried again in March to gain shire approval to keep an additional horse but his application was rejected because it had “insufficient information”.

A further attempt in July succeeded – but with conditions that Mr Wakeman says he cannot accept.

“None of this would have happened if I had been given correct information at the shire front counter in 2011,” he said.

“My partner is now gone – partly due to this – and if I sell and look for another place to keep two horses, I will lose at least $100,000 on the sale.

“I’ve still got one horse, Tommy, and you can see how lonely he is by himself.

“I’ve had a gutful of what this shire has done to me and I’ve told them I want my money back or I won’t be paying my rates.”

Toodyay Shire President Brian Rayner said Mr Wakeman’s 2014 application was “properly refused” and he was prosecuted for ignoring a SAT ruling.

“If Mr Wakeman is unhappy with the conditions of (the latest) approval, he may of course seek to have them reviewed in SAT.

“I do not intend to revisit matters from almost five years ago that have been appropriately and thoroughly dealt with as part of a formal review.”