I received a response from the OPCC a couple of days ago regarding my complaints against Hampshire Constabulary. I have published that response below.
Today I compiled a reply to the OPCC response. That reply is also published here.
'Mr Mark Stock
*****************
***********
*********
*******
By email: ********************
Date: 4 June 2025
Our reference: *********
Your reference: *********
Mr Stock,
Review outcome – your complaint against Hampshire & Isle of Wight Constabulary
I am writing further to our previous correspondence dated 19 May 2025 regarding your review application.
My role as the Independent Review Officer is to consider whether Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary handled your complaint in a reasonable and proportionate way, in line with complaints legislation and statutory guidance issued by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). I cannot re-investigate your complaint matters or the action taken by police. These are operational policing decisions for the complaint handler to consider and they are not within the remit of the review.
After taking into account all of the information available, I have determined that the outcome was reasonable and proportionate. I will not be upholding the review application.
In their letter to you dated 2 April 2025, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary informed you that they would be taking no further action with your complaint as it was the same or very similar to previous complaints, CO/2908/22 and CO/2642/23, both of which had been subject to OPCC reviews. Mr Finnegan considered that these previous complaints had been appropriately addressed.
I understand from your review application that you are dissatisfied with this outcome as ‘the original decision to send a police officer to your home address on 25/09/2022 was wrong.’ You also re-iterate that ‘information about you currently held by Hampshire Constabulary on their database is false’ and ‘you cannot afford justice y database, an apology for the psychological distress caused and an explanation of the changes or improvements in policy resulting from your complaint.
In considering whether the outcome reached was reasonable and proportionate, I have reviewed your complaint of 30 March 2025 and how this was considered by the Constabulary before a final decision was made. Page | 2
In making my assessment, I have considered the application of the four principles of reasonable and proportionate complaint handling as set out in the statutory guidance.
Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary undertook some preliminary action to understand your complaint and found that it related to your dissatisfaction with PC Newstead’s visit to your home address on 25 September 2022 and the retention of records held on the Constabulary database.
Having considered the information you provided in your review application and your complaint of 30 March 2025, I agree that the Constabulary’s decision to take no further action was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances as the matters complained of are the same or very similar to previous complaints. This is in accordance with the IOPC’s statutory guidance which states that complaints should not be re-visited where it is not appropriate to do so and where no new evidence or concerns are apparent and where complaints have been re-framed.
I am sorry that your experience has led to you making a formal complaint against the police. While this may not be the outcome you had hoped for, I trust this letter provides you with an explanation as to why the police handled your complaint in this way.
This letter formally concludes your statutory review of the police complaint. If you are not happy with the outcome of this complaint process, your only avenue to continue to pursue this is through applying for a Judicial Review. I would encourage you to seek independent legal advice from a qualified legal professional if this is something you are considering.
Yours sincerely,
Independent Review Officer (51123)
On behalf of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner'
From Mark Stock
To the Independent Review Officer (51123)
I am writing to express my absolute incredulity at your ‘Review outcome’ dated 4th June, 2025 and your failure to address my complaints against Hampshire Constabulary. This ‘Review outcome’ continues to fail to address the substance of complaints made on two previous occasions ( CO/2908/22 and CO/2642/23 ) and which have been casually dismissed by Mr Finnegan who believed the complaint handling was reasonable and proportionate.
The complaint handling CANNOT be held to be reasonable and proportionate if Hampshire Constabulary are permitted to retain FALSE, DISCRIMINATORY and PSYCHOLOGICALLY damaging information held under my name on their database for 10 years or until I am 100 years old.
Information is currently being held under my name as THREE historically separate ‘occurrences’, ie ‘442220305219’, ‘44220331362’ and ‘44220382742’.
‘Occurrences’ ‘442220305219’ and ‘44220331362’ have been identified by Hampshire Constabulary as mistakes resulting from ‘crossed wires’ and ‘duplicated’ but remain on their database.
‘Occurrence’ ‘442220305219’ makes the following FALSE statement ‘Police have already dealt with the same stalking incident on ‘occurrence’ 44220382742.’ ‘Occurrence’ 44220382742 makes NO reference to a ‘stalking incident’. Indeed, I have, CATAGORICALLY NEVER stalked my accuser. There is NO evidence that I have ever stalked ANYONE, EVER, throughout the entirety of my life. If Hampshire Constabulary believe they do have such evidence then it should be presented to me so that I might have the opportunity to challenge that evidence.
‘Occurrence’ ‘44220331362’ makes a FALSE accusation of a ‘further report of harassment’ but is deemed to be a duplicate of ‘occurrence’ ‘44220382742’.
‘Occurrence’ ‘44220382742’ makes the original FALSE accusation of ‘stalking/harassment’ and of ‘a continuation of on-going harassment’. I have, CATAGORICALLY NEVER ‘stalked’ or ‘harassed’ ANYONE, EVER, throughout the entirety of my life.
Hampshire Constabulary obstinately continue to refuse to remove the FALSE information outlined above despite voluminous and explicit evidence provided by me that exonerates me.
The FALSE information held under my name being retained by Hampshire Constabulary on their database CAN be used to DISCRIMINATE against me.
The FALSE information held under my name being retained by Hampshire Constabulary on their database IS and continues to be PSYCHOLOGICALLY damaging to me.
If PC Newstead and or his superior officer had made proper investigations while interviewing my accuser, CAMHS Art Therapist, Sally Mungall, he and or his superior officer would have concluded, and rightly so, that there was NO evidence of ‘stalking’ or ‘harassment’ by me.
Your assessment, outlined in your ‘review outcome’ ie ‘the Constabulary’s decision to take no further action was reasonable and proportionate’ is FLAWED. The Constabulary’s decision to take no further action IS NOT the primary concern of my original complaint and is misleading.
If PC Newstead and or his superior officer had established the FACTS while investigating the spurious claims of my accuser then it would have been demonstrably unnecessary to visit my home on the 25/09/22 to speak with me ‘to offer suitable advice’ regarding my behaviour.
There were, instead, one of two options available to PC Newstead and Hampshire Constabulary ie either charge me with an offence or take ‘NO FURTHER ACTION’. ‘No further action’ is NOT an exoneration.
There are many reasons why the police decide to close investigations with No Further Action. These include:
The police are satisfied that you didn’t commit the crime.
The police don’t have enough evidence to charge you with the crime.
Key witnesses do not want to testify against you.
They have decided that prosecution is not in the public interest.
The police may choose to reopen your case if:
They find new evidence that points to you committing the offence.
They have reviewed the old evidence and found new connections that implicate you.
There were procedural errors in how the initial investigation was handled.
There is a lot of pressure or public interest in the case.
The fact that Hampshire Constabulary obstinately continue to refuse to remove the FALSE information under my name from their database is likely because they believe me to be a credible ‘risk’ to the public.
Evidence, by way of access to records requests, later confirmed that my accuser, CAMHS Art Therapist, Sally Mungall, approached Hampshire Constabulary in or around February 2022. Hampshire Constabulary met with Sally Mungall at her home in February 2022 to discuss her concerns about me. I have since made additional access to records requests relating to these visits by Hampshire Constabulary to Sally Mungall but been denied due to ‘third party’ concerns. I have requested third party permission via the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust but been ignored. I wanted to check the records to determine the veracity of the claims being made against me. I have copious evidence of deception, misrepresentation and lying by Sally Mungall and her clinical cohorts about me. It is highly likely that FALSE accusations were made against me by Sally Mungall to Hampshire Constabulary in February 2022 and that these FALSE accusations had bearing on decisions to send PC Newstead to my home on the 25th September, 2022.
The FALSE, DISCRIMINATORY and PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGING information held under my name continues to retained by Hampshire Constabulary under a CATEGORY 2 heading of ‘VIOLENT & SEXUAL OFFENCES’, accusing me of ‘stalking/harassment’ and making ‘unwanted contact’. That is a GROSS INJUSTICE and unnecessary burden on my good reputation that I will have to shoulder for the rest of my natural life.
I AM INNOCENT!
I am compelled to continue protesting against this GROSS INJUSTICE by way of further hunger strikes.
I am committed to a course of action that will see me demonstrating in and around high-profile locations in central London commencing towards the end of this month, June, 2025. My demonstrations will be of a theatrical nature, designed to attract as much public attention as possible. I will progressively push boundaries and become increasingly provocative so as to make myself a national news story and draw attention to my social media presence, particularly my blog page at www.fourandtwentydeadcrows.com which currently has a worldwide audience of a few hundred readers. I expect my readership to grow in line with coverage of my demonstrations. When I have a sufficiently large enough audience, preferably hundreds of thousands, hopefully millions, worldwide, I will recommence my hunger strike and starve myself in protest in the court of public opinion. I am prepared to take my protest to its ultimate, irreversible conclusion, absconding and dying in the British countryside, if necessary. I will not back down until justice is served. I am currently denied life and liberty. I want my life back. I will not compromise. In the meantime I will continue holding truth to power by telling my story online, on radio, on television and in print.
MARK STOCK
6th June, 2025
