LATEST ISSUES 27th March, 2026

I have just sent the following email to Paula Flanagan, Lead Case Officer at the Information Commissioners Office

'Dear Paula,

I hope you are well.

I wish I could say the same for myself but I am actually writing to you in a state of extreme distress. I would be grateful if you would answer the questions I have compiled below.

Earlier today I received a disclosure from the Information Access Team within the Information Commissioner's Office under the case reference number IC-4*********7

The information disclosed is your correspondence with Hampshire Constabulary, particularly Jason Russell. I would like to draw your attention to the following extract taken from your email to the Joint Information Management Unit Chief Constable Hampshire Constabulary on the 26 February 2026 @h****************** Case reference number: IC-4*********0 Your reference: H****************G.

‘We note that you said on 18 February, ****

so we feel it would be helpful if you could now respond to our enquiries whilst perhaps taking into consideration the following:

1.Applicability of Part 3 DPA 2018

 Section 45(4)(b) can only be relied upon where the relevant data is being processed for law enforcement purposes within the meaning of Part 3 DPA 2018.

Mr Stock maintains that the information in question may relate to safeguarding activity, Prevent-referral assessments, or other non-law-enforcement administrative functions. Where processing does not fall within Part 3, section 45(4)(b) cannot be applied.

Please therefore clarify:

• The specific law-enforcement purpose under which the personal data is being processed; and

• Why Part 3 is engaged in this case.

2. Necessity and Proportionality Assessment

You have told Mr Stock that withholding their data is “a necessary and proportionate measure” to prevent, detect, investigate, or prosecute criminal offences. However, this statement repeats the statutory wording without demonstrating:

• What specific criminal offence(s) may be affected;

• How disclosure would prejudice an ongoing or prospective law-enforcement activity; and

• Why withholding is strictly necessary, rather than less intrusive measures. The ICO expects controllers to provide a clear, case-specific justification rather than a generalised assertion.

Please therefore provide:

• A detailed explanation of the prejudice you believe disclosure would cause Mr Stock;

• The rationale behind your assessment of necessity and proportionality: and

• Confirmation of whether any relevant investigation is ongoing, concluded, or inactive.

3. Status of the Referral / Records Mr Stock says that the Prevent-related matter was assessed and closed. If the information relates to a concluded safeguarding triage rather than a live criminal investigation, this may significantly affect the ability to rely on the exemption.

Please confirm:

• Whether any investigation is currently active;

• Whether any intelligence or operational activity would be compromised by disclosure; and

• Whether any of the withheld information is administrative, safeguarding, or non-law-enforcement material, and therefore out of scope of Part 3.

4. Requirement for a fresh review In light of the above, we ask that you:

1. Review Mr Stock’s SAR in its entirety;

2. Reconsider your reliance on section 45(4)(b) in accordance with the statutory tests; and

3. Provide Mr Stock with:

o Either the information previously withheld; or

o Provide us with a clear explanation why the exemption is engaged and justified.’

I spoke to you on the phone on the 13^th March, 2026 and you explained that you had exhausted all legal avenues of investigation with Hampshire Police and concluded that the ICO could not compel them to disclose my personal data which I had repeatedly requested. I failed to confirm with you clarification of the exemptions that Hampshire Police were applying. You told me that you had spoken to Jason Russel by telephone and had been satisfied by his explanation for denying me access to my personal data.

Today’s disclosure confirms two extremely concerning issues

The first being Section 45(4)(b) of the Data Protection Act 2018 which I was already aware of and

The second being ‘Part 3 of the DPA 2018’ which is new to me.

I understand the following

Section 45(4)(b) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (Part 3, Law Enforcement) allows controllers to restrict a data subject's right of access to avoid prejudicing the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties. 

And

‘However, data sharing by a “competent authority” for specific law enforcement purposes is subject to a different regime under Part 3 of the DPA 2018 for law enforcement processing. - https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/data-sharing/data-sharing-a-code-of-practice/law-enforcement-processing/#part3’

Your communication with the JIMU appears to confirm that Hampshire Police believe me guilty of some criminal offence or liable for prosecution or criminal penalties! THIS IS OUTRAGOUS! I haven’t done anything wrong!!

Either that or Jason Russell and or the wider JIMU is guilty, themselves, of misusing legislation to prevent my access to the facts. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist I am asking, is this a cover-up? IS THIS CORRUPTION? I am genuinely at a loss for any other credible explanation

Please, Paula, would you confirm that

1)      Jason Russell actually confirmed to you during your telephone conversation with him that he is denying access to my personal data specifically citing Section 45(4)(b) of the Data Protection Act 2018 ?

2)      If Jason Russell confirmed the above exemption did he also confirm or allude to whatever ‘criminal offences’ or ‘criminal penalties’ I am alleged to have committed or that I am liable for prosecution or criminal penalties?

3)      Would you confirm that the ‘COMPETENT AUTHORITY’ mentioned alongside ‘Part 3 of the DPA 2018’ is actually HAMPSHIRE & IOW HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION TRUST?

I have been led to believe by the Director of Information Governance at H&IOWH Foundation Trust, Sadie Bell, that she is denying my access to personal data held by the Trust because she has been instructed by Hampshire Police to deny me access.

But the information disclosed today suggests that Hampshire Police are denying me access to my personal data because of ‘Part 3 of the DPA 2018’.

4)      Would you confirm that Sadie Bell and or other authorities within the Trust are divulging my mental health records to Hampshire Police under the pretext of ‘Part 3 of the DPA 2018’ in attempt to obstruct my access to my personal data?

THIS WHOLE DEBACLE APPEARS TO BE A DISHONEST COLLABORATION BETWEEN HAMPSHIRE POLICE AND THE TRUST DESIGNED TO DENY MY ACCESS TO MY PERSONAL DATA. I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT BOTH ARE CONSCIOUSLY AND INTENTIONALLY ATTEMPTING TO COVER UP WRONG-DOING AND PROTECT INDIVIDUAL AND INSTITUTIONAL REPUTATIONS.

I need to hold people to account. My mental health is dependent upon holding people to account.

I need help before it is too late.

Yours sincerely,

Mark'