The visit to my home by Hampshire Police early morning Sunday, 25^th September, 2025 was a serious accusation dressed up with cake icing politeness. The ‘words of advice’ offered to me by PC Newstead hid a septic reality that I was initially unaware of. An indelible stain was about to disfigure my good reputation and interfere with my basic human rights and freedoms, potentially for the rest of my life.

The dishonest and obstructive management and investigation of my formal complaints by an NHS Foundation Trust steered me towards the cul de sac that is the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman. The PHSO had informed me that a caseworker could not be assigned to my complaint for at least ELEVEN MONTHS because of a Covid 19 backlog. The only other recourse available was legal action against the Trust and a 'fitness to practice' complaint against Sally Mungall. Rather than seek action that might damage her reputation or jeopardise her job I followed the advice given by her regulatory body, the Health and Care Professions Council and contacted Sally Mungall directly, asking for help to understand what had gone wrong in therapy with her and why she had misrepresented me in communication with clinicians and management working in two NHS Foundation Trusts, the local CRISIS team and potentially with Hampshire Police.

Now the state power of the police was being co-opted by a healthcare professional desperate to avoid professional accountability. My legitimate enquiries about systemic failures and potential clinical neglect were being rebranded as ‘harassment’, my polite and reasonable contact deliberately misconstrued as ‘stalking’. And while no further action was taken against me, it became clear that sometimes the process is the punishment.

The consequence of that visit and the recording of spurious allegations against me has forever altered my perception of the world, making everything seem dangerous. I no longer feel safe. ANYWHERE!

I visited the Joint Information Management Unit of Hampshire Police in Winchester the following day to present ID in support of an access to request records. I wanted to find details of Sally Mungall’s almost certain contact with police back in February 2022 to check on the veracity of accusations she might have made against me.

As it turned out Hampshire Police were never going to disclose that information, not even in redacted format. I needed third party consent, ideally from Sally Mungall herself and she was never going to give me consent. Nevertheless, my access to records was going to disclose a different set of records that I hadn’t anticipated and which were truly devastating to me.

I also initiated a complaint against Hampshire Police, contesting the rationale for PC Newstead’s visit. I had been traumatised by the visit and disturbed by the suggestion that I was being accused of an offence, particularly harassment.  

‘From: Lowe, Amy (17010) ****************************Sent: 06 October 2022 11:36To: mark****************Subject: Hampshire Constabulary complaint

 Good morning,

I am emailing in regards to your complaint, this has been given the reference ***********.

I’m sorry to hear Hampshire Constabulary has not met your expectations.

PC Newsted visited you on 25/09/2022 following a report Hampshire Constabulary received. PC Newsted’s intention of the visit was to make it clear to you that Sally did not want any further contact…’

In response to my further enquiries about the nature of the supposed offence, PC Amy Lowe emailed me to advise

‘From: Lowe, Amy (17010) ****************************Sent: 12 October 2022 08:54To: Mark StockSubject: RE: Hampshire Constabulary complaint 12/10/2022

Good Morning,

‘This was not a harassment warning, PC Newsted attended your address to request that you make no contact with Sally, there was no further action taken following this.’

A suspicion of harassment or actual harassment would have surely have incurred a harassment warning from the police. One would reasonably conclude that the absence of a harassment warning was in recognition that no offence of harassment had actually been committed’

But the envelope that arrived through my letterbox late October contained information that suggested otherwise.

ACCESS TO RECORDS DISCLOSED BY JIMU, HAMPSHIRE POLICE

Included with a covering letter dated 24^th October, 2022 were three ‘occurrences’ which I have kept on file.

The first ‘occurrence’   ‘*********42’ is designated ‘type Stalking/Harassment’ and reports ‘Primary investigation’… WHAT HAS HAPPENED? This incident is in relation to a continuation of on-going harassment between MARK STOCK ( suspect )…’

This report contradicts PC A Lowe’s statement ‘This was not a harassment warning,…’

There were two other ‘occurrences’, ‘*********19’ and ‘*********62’.

‘Occurrence ‘*********19’  is also designated ‘type Stalking/Harassment’ and reports ‘Police have already dealt with the same stalking incident on occurrence *********42. The OIC has dealt with the suspect through words of advice. It appears there has been some cross wires with the additional occurrences being created when all updates should have been placed on this occurrence as the master, instead new occurrences were created to record each contact.’

So, in this ‘occurrence’, harassment has been embellished and or recategorized, without evidence, as ‘stalking’. This ‘occurrence’ goes further and admits to a mistake by Hampshire Police. However, I am led to believe that this mistake remains on their database.

‘Occurrence*********62’ is also designated ‘type Stalking/Harassment’ and makes a summary ‘Further report of harassment’ and reports As per the below, I have cancelled this as a duplicate of ‘*********19’.

I ABSOLUTELY AND CATAGORICALLY DENY HARASSMENT.

I HAVE MADE REPEATED REQUESTS OF HAMPSHIRE POLICE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF STALKING. ALL SUCH REQUESTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED LIKELY BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

The legal definitions of harassment and stalking are here culled from the

Protection from Harassment Act 1997. According to these legal definitions I was not guilty of either harassment nor stalking.

1Prohibition of harassment.

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

[F1(1A)A person must not pursue a course of conduct —

(a)which involves harassment of two or more persons, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and

(c)by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)—

(i)not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or

(ii)to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.]

(2)For the purposes of this section [F2or section 2A(2)(c)], the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to [F3 or involves] harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3)Subsection (1) [F4or (1A)] does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

[F12AOffence of stalking

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a)the person pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1(1), and

(b)the course of conduct amounts to stalking.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) (and section 4A(1)(a)) a person's course of conduct amounts to stalking of another person if—

(a)it amounts to harassment of that person,

(b)the acts or omissions involved are ones associated with stalking, and

(c)the person whose course of conduct it is knows or ought to know that the course of conduct amounts to harassment of the other person.

(3)The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking—

(a)following a person,

(b)contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,

(c)publishing any statement or other material—

(i)relating or purporting to relate to a person, or

(ii)purporting to originate from a person,

(d)monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,

(e)loitering in any place (whether public or private),

(f)interfering with any property in the possession of a person,

(g)watching or spying on a person.’

And this wasn't the end of it.

After being given the runaround for over a year by at least three separate departments of Hampshire Police, I would eventually be informed that these false, discriminatory and psychologically damaging records were being held under a 'CATAGORY 2 VIOLENT & SEXUAL OFFENCES' for at least 10 years or potentially until I die because, incredibly, I am now deemed to be a 'risk to the public'!!!

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Back in late October, 2022, I had no idea just how bad things really were, unaware that I was actually regarded by Hampshire Police as a 'Violent & Sexual Offender'.

In reality, I was the victim of serious abuse and clinical neglect, the casualty of a malicious covert conspiracy and the embittered plaintiff of a disingenuous complaints investigation.

I was no longer under any illusions. I had no alternative but to proceed with the 'fitness to practice' complaint against Sally Mungall.