Their account: the notices came without their evidence being sought.
Miss E and Mr J say they were not invited to give evidence about the incidents as part of the process that produced the notices. Miss E’s grounds describe an older resident living alone, raising concerns about access, vehicles and her own safety, yet facing restrictions founded on an account she disputes. Mr J expressly confirms the same concern.
The file does record earlier contact with police: Miss E wrote down her understanding of a June 2024 discussion, and Ithildîn later disputed parts of it. The question is therefore precise: where is the record showing that their evidence was sought and fairly assessed for the warning and the later notice? Pages 64–66 show a dispute about the account, not a reasoned resolution of it.
Authorities heard from Mayo. Show where they tested his account against the people who would bear the restrictions.
Read the correspondence yourself
The ASB route was discussed alongside the private litigation.
Mark John Mayo was the claimant in L00BP152. Bradley Ithildîn, signing as Brad Ithildîn, PC 18754, was the Devon and Cornwall Police officer in these exchanges. The following images show the original dated messages reproduced in Miss E’s appeal exhibits.
31 July 2024, 07:41 · The officer proposes the route
“I’m thinking potentially we can go down the Anti social behaviour route and use that legislation.”
Ithildîn asks Mayo for photographs of the digger and the latest incident, then proposes using ASB legislation. PDF page 70.
31 July 2024, 12:37 · Mayo connects it to his injunction
“Provided that he confirms that your proposed ASB action will not interfere with the application for the injunction or the proceedings that will follow the injunction, I would like to proceed.”
Mayo says he has emailed his solicitor and offers dashcam and “handcuff” recordings. The earlier message asks permission to forward material to the sergeant, inspector and Ian McIver. PDF page 74.
2 August 2024, 16:46 · A meeting, an evidence referral, a warning
“We have started the CPW process for you and I have sent your previous statement and exhibits as the evidence.”
Ithildîn reports meeting the ASB officer and his sergeant. He says a Council barrister will review the evidence before the warning is written. PDF page 80.
Miss E and Mr J’s allegation
Was this independent enforcement—or a process shaped around one litigant?
Miss E and Mr J allege collusion between Mayo and officials involved in the process. They point to the private exchanges, the proposed ASB route alongside the injunction, the referral of Mayo’s material and their account that their own evidence was not sought before action.
The demand is not for another assurance that procedure was followed. Produce the assessment that tested the allegations, considered the contrary account and identified Miss E’s own conduct. If that work was done, its record should answer the challenge.
Police–Council cooperation is part of the ASB framework. The disputed issue is whether that cooperation produced an independent assessment or advanced an untested, one-sided account. That is what these documents and questions put under scrutiny.
CPN-03: answer the collusion allegation with the decision record →
Was her call for help counted against her?
The 2024 warning lists police logs 0569/26 June, 0347/29 June, 0348/29 June and 0504/26 July. Miss E’s annotations say one was her call for assistance, challenge the treatment of the digger incident and dispute the conduct attributed to her. She says the account omitted the reason she needed help.
Two entries on one date require an explanation of whether they concern separate events or separate reports of the same event. The original logs and recordings—not a repeated summary—must resolve that question. The warning’s references and her objections appear on PDF pages 96–103.
The Council cited footage. The officer ended correspondence.
Ian McIver’s 2 June 2026 reply says the Council progressed the notice after reviewing complainant-supplied dashcam footage with audio that he says clearly showed obstruction. He confirms police support. That is the Council’s stated basis; the recording itself is not included in the bundle. Where does it establish Miss E’s personal conduct, and when was she given an opportunity to answer it?
Ithildîn’s 7 June reply says he will not correspond further or answer further emails and refers Miss E to the police complaints route. Her preceding questions concern the notice’s origin, handling and service. The reply does not identify the substantive answers to those questions.
Those are recorded responses. They leave the underlying evidence and decision-making open to the specific challenges below.
The solicitor connection: identify the role, not just the firm.
Mayo’s 31 July email expressly raises his solicitor’s advice about the injunction. A separate 29 July transmission reproduced at page 77 is from Sandra Bubyer, Litigation Secretary, Seldons LLP, sent for and on behalf of Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell, solicitor and partner at Seldons, Bideford; individual SRA 664668.
The firm is Seldons LLP, SRA 570661. The direct question is what role it played in supplying or checking material for the ASB process, what account was advanced and whether the competing safety account was included. Bubyer is identified as the transmitting secretary; the evidence does not make her the decision-maker.
Named people. Separate responsibilities.
Ian McIver
Community Safety & Public Health Lead Officer, Torridge District Council, in the June 2026 correspondence · Bideford, Devon
Bradley Ithildîn
Police Constable · Devon and Cornwall Police · PC 18754 in the correspondence · Torrington / Holsworthy, Devon
Donna Gutteridge
Police Sergeant · Devon and Cornwall Police · PS 18490, Torrington & Holsworthy Beat Sergeant, on the August 2024 warning
Devon and Cornwall Police
Police evidence, supervision and safeguarding · Torrington and Holsworthy, Devon
The reporting record
What changed in this article.
- New investigation · Source emails · Twelve questions
A five-year notice. Where was her evidence heard?
Miss E’s 103-page CPN appeal connects the Mayo–Ithildîn correspondence, a police–Council meeting and the notice’s evidential basis. Read the email images and twelve questions to Ian McIver, Bradley Ithildîn, Donna Gutteridge, the Council, police, claimant, solicitors and court-file administration.
Read the emails and named questions
Substantive additions and corrections will be recorded here. The full case can be followed through Latest developments.
Stay with the story
Follow the investigation
as the record develops.
Follow what changes when another document, account or answer enters the record.
Follow Daux Scythe, our presenter, on LinkedIn for new reporting, evidence reviews and significant developments. The website remains the home of the articles, documents and response record.
This opens his profile; choose Follow on LinkedIn.
The missing identities matter too.
The 2 August email refers to a sergeant and a Council barrister; earlier correspondence refers to an inspector. Name them and identify what each reviewed. The email does not name the meeting sergeant, so Gutteridge’s later identification on the warning must not substitute for the attendance record.
PC 18881 Gibbons is identified in Mayo’s account of attendance on 29 June; another passage uses “Gibson”. The force should confirm the officer’s identity and contemporaneous record. R Gallin, identified as Renee Gallin in the covering-email subject, is the HMCTS legal adviser who requested documents in September. Her role raises a court-file question, addressed below.
Public powers require an individual evidential basis.
Section 43 of the 2014 Act concerns conduct, persistent or continuing detrimental effects and unreasonableness. Miss E invokes the section 46 appeal grounds to challenge the notice and her responsibility.
The Home Office guidance calls for sufficient evidence and case-specific assessment; its discussion of warnings and notices calls for explaining the behaviour and supporting evidence, individually tailored requirements and proportionate restrictions. It also envisages cooperation between agencies. The question here is whether the evidential safeguards were applied to Miss E—not simply whether agencies worked together.
How the process developed
Ithildîn proposes the ASB route; Mayo raises the injunction and offers recordings.
A police–Council meeting is reported. Mayo’s statement and exhibits have been forwarded; a barrister’s review is described as the next step.
The warning is served. Its stated period is 24 months; McIver and PS 18490 Gutteridge are named.
The five-year CPN is issued.
McIver identifies dashcam reliance; Ithildîn later declines further correspondence.
Miss E sends her protective appeal and then the omitted continuation statement.
She resends the 103-page bundle and asks that the complete file reach the legal adviser.
The appeal file: did the decision-maker receive it all?
On 11 September, R Gallin asked for the CPN and clarification of the grounds. Miss E’s 22 September response identifies the earlier filing, the notice’s location in the bundle and the continuation sent on 19 June. She asks why the complete record had apparently not reached the legal adviser. Confirm what was received, what was forwarded and what is now before the court.
CPN-01 to CPN-12
The questions that need answers
Published 23 September 2026. These question formulations have not yet been sent by The Unanswered Record. The preceding requests and recorded replies are identified above.
CPN-01
What did Miss E personally do?
To: Ian McIver · Torridge District Council
Identify each act attributed to Miss E, its date and the evidence connecting her personally to it. Where is the finding separating her conduct from Mr J’s or anyone else’s? Being the resident or owner is not an explanation of what she did.
CPN-02
Where is the invitation to give their evidence?
To: Bradley Ithildîn · Ian McIver · Devon and Cornwall Police · Torridge District Council
Miss E and Mr J say neither was asked to give evidence about the incidents for this notice-making process before the notices arrived. Produce any dated invitation, interview, account obtained and assessment of their response. If none was sought, explain how their account was tested before action was taken.
Grounds and supplemental statement; PDF pages 64–80; Mr J’s account, 23 September 2026 · Read the context
CPN-03
Independent assessment—or a process shaped around Mayo’s case?
To: Bradley Ithildîn · Ian McIver · Devon and Cornwall Police · Torridge District Council
Answer Miss E and Mr J’s allegation of collusion. In the 31 July and 2 August emails, the ASB route is discussed alongside Mayo’s injunction and his statement and exhibits are sent as the evidence. What independent checks tested that material, what contrary evidence was considered, and where is the record showing that the decision was not simply driven by one litigant’s account?
CPN-04
What did the supervising sergeant actually check?
To: Donna Gutteridge
What did you personally review before the August 2024 warning bearing your name was issued? How did you verify Miss E’s involvement, distinguish the disputed incident logs and assess her safety reports? Were you the sergeant at the 2 August meeting? Identify the record of your own decisions.
CPN-05
Why five years? Where is the proportionate decision?
To: Ian McIver · Torridge District Council
Produce the recorded reasons for a five-year notice and each restriction imposed. What current conduct, recurrence risk, individual circumstances and alternatives were assessed? What did the decision-maker do with Miss E’s account that she sought protection rather than obstructed legitimate access?
CPN-06
What exactly did you give the police—and what context accompanied it?
To: Mark John Mayo
Identify the complete statements, exhibits and original recordings supplied for the ASB process, their dates and any selections or edits. Which incident was said to be Miss E’s personal act? What did you provide about her competing account, safety complaints and the disputed access arrangements?
CPN-07
What was the solicitor’s role in the ASB route?
To: Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell · Seldons LLP
Mayo’s 31 July email says he had contacted his solicitor about whether the proposed ASB action would interfere with an injunction. Confirm who was involved, what non-privileged material the firm supplied or forwarded for police or Council use, and what checks ensured its accuracy and completeness. Was Miss E’s safety account included?
CPN-08
Who attended, who reviewed, and who authorised?
To: Devon and Cornwall Police · Torridge District Council
Name the participants in the 2 August 2024 meeting, the inspector to whom material was referred and the Council barrister mentioned in the email. Identify what each reviewed, when any legal review was completed and who authorised the final warning. Provide the decision record and any non-privileged reasons or assessment that can be disclosed.
CPN-09
Do the incident logs support the account used against her?
To: Bradley Ithildîn · Donna Gutteridge · Devon and Cornwall Police
Produce the underlying records for 0569/26 June, 0347/29 June, 0348/29 June and 0504/26 July 2024, with an appropriate privacy review. Which record is Miss E’s call for assistance? Are the two 29 June entries separate incidents or reports of the same event, and how was that distinction handled?
CPN-10
Show the footage behind the decision.
To: Ian McIver · Torridge District Council
Identify and disclose the complete recording and audio relied on for the 29 May 2026 notice, with its provenance, date and any relevant surrounding sequence. Where does it show Miss E’s alleged conduct, who viewed it, and what opportunity was she given to answer it?
CPN-11
Why end correspondence without answering the document questions?
To: Bradley Ithildîn · Devon and Cornwall Police
The 7 June 2026 reply says no further emails will be answered. Which previous response answered Miss E’s specific questions about the notice’s origin, custody, preparation and service? If they had not been answered, who was made responsible for providing the records and an explanation?
CPN-12
Did the complete appeal reach the legal adviser?
To: HMCTS · court-file administration
Confirm receipt of the 18 June appeal and the 19 June continuation, identify what was placed before the legal adviser, and explain the 11 September request for the notice and further clarification. Has the complete 103-page bundle and EE8.1A now reached the person considering the appeal?
18–19 June and 11–22 September 2026 email chain · Read the context
The source record
The 103-page appeal bundle, supplemental statement, EE8.1A continuation and filing correspondence were reviewed on 23 September 2026. Page references identify the supplied PDF. The actual dashcam and call recordings remain requested; EE9 reserves further video evidence to follow.
Read the document index and page references →
Supply a response or the underlying records. Responses will be linked to the question they address.
Before restricting a vulnerable person’s life, show how her evidence was heard.
Show the conduct. Show the evidence. Show where her account was heard.
Return to the wider case → · Read the connected access and safety concerns →