I hadn't expected to be posting to this blog until after the 22nd December as I am working on re-submitting ALL the evidence previously sent to the Health and Care Professions Council referencing my formal 'fitness to practice' complaint against registrant, Sally Mungall.

The damage caused by Sally Mungall and her clinical and managerial cohorts at CAMHS, Bramblys Drive , Basingstoke and the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust continues to reverberate with undiminished force more than

FOUR years after the initial event.

The referral of me to the government's counter-terrorism initiative, PREVENT, is a direct and uninterrupted consequence of that same initial event caused by Sally Mungall. My life has never been my own and certainly never been the same since first meeting Sally Mungall in September, 2021.

I had expected cordiality, contrition and cooperation following my recent Subject Access Request of HIOW Healthcare ( formally Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust ) . I had asked for the correspondence between the person who made the contentious referral of me to Prevent, Gemma Stubbington, and the Safeguarding Board who allegedly insisted upon the referral to Prevent. I need access to the requested information to present to lawyers affiliated with Prevent Watch for consideration by the end of January, 2026.

I received the following email from Liz Bega, Records Request Manager at HIOW Healthcare Access to Records, earlier this afternoon.

‘Dear Mark

Thank you for your patience whilst I have reviewed your request.

Your request was reviewed the intention of release, however, having reviewed the information with relevant parties, I am afraid that on this occasion I am unable to disclose the information to you.  This information is exempt under Section 45(4) (b) of the Data Protection Act 2018.  This exemption permits data controllers to withhold information from a Subject Access Request (SAR) if it is a necessary and proportionate measure to prevent, detect, investigate, or prosecute criminal offences or execute criminal penalties.

I do understand entirely that this will not be the outcome you were anticipating.  I have shared this outcome with the Trust Data Protection Officer, Sadie Bell, who is copied into this exchange.  

Should you decide to make a complaint regarding the way that I have handled your request, I am providing you with a link to the Information Commissioner’s Office website where you can lodge this:  https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/

Yours sincerely

Liz

Liz Bega

Records Request Manager

I replied

‘Dear Liz,

I am outraged by the decision to withhold access to the information that I have requested.

Access to records serves as a cornerstone of democratic governance, empowering citizens to hold public officials accountable and fostering transparency in public administration. 

The rationale behind the use of exemption under Section 45(4) (b) of the Data Protection Act 2018 implicitly states that the information being withheld is a necessary and proportionate measure to prevent, detect, investigate, or prosecute criminal offences or execute criminal penalties. 

That implies that YOU and or the Trust regard the information that I have requested identifies ME as a suspect of a criminal offence or likely to commit a criminal offence.

The only other reasonable conclusion that I can draw from your decision to withhold access to the information that I have requested is that YOU and or the Trust wish to protect individuals and or the Trust and so prevent accountability.

I will invite you to offer final comments before I forward this as a formal complaint to the ICO.

Please be advised that I will be forwarding your correspondence to Prevent Watch who have already advised that this whole sorry Prevent referral debacle be passed onto their appointed lawyers for consideration, regardless of any decision made by the ICO.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Stock’

I then forwarded the previous email to the Trust Data Protection Officer, Sadie Bell, with a covering email

‘Dear Sadie Bell,

I have copied you in for your information.

I sincerely DO NOT understand why Section 45(4) (b) of the Data Protection Act 2018 has been used as an exemption permitting the withholding of information from my Subject Access Request (SAR). Is it possible for you to explain to me how withholding information about ME is a necessary and proportionate measure to prevent, detect, investigate, or prosecute criminal offences or execute criminal penalties? I am NOT aware of being the subject of any criminal offences or criminal penalties.

I believe that Liz Bega's decision to be unlawful and will be seeking immediate legal representation as well as lodging a formal complaint with the ICO

Where is the transparency, Sadie?

The Trust is currently responsible for my mental health but seems determined to trigger extreme distress and exacerbate existing mental health symptoms. 

I am now seriously, seriously depressed following Liz Bega's decision.

Kind regards,

Mark Stock’

Gemma Stubbington's referral of me to Prevent was the consequence of a rush of blood to the head, an amygdala response of histrionics provoked by an irrational fear that I was about to cause reputational embarrassment to Hampshire & IOW Healthcare and that isn't just fanciful hyperbole by me. My care coordinator, John Kelly, in a rare moment of panic had already revealed that Gemma's first concern was to protect the Trust. The decision to refer me was rubber-stamped by the Trust Safeguarding Board and action taken within a few days.

The referral was considered by the PREVENT referral team and closed almost immediately due to lack of merit. There was NO case to answer because it was blindingly obvious that I wasn't a fucking terrorist.

But now the referral was closed, just how easy was it going to be to demand accountability?

Would everyone involved respond with the same fervor and appetite for immediate action that hastened the referral?

I was now counting on the cooperation of Sadie Bell.