This page examines and reproduces, for purposes of defence, research, and procedural transparency, the official witness statement issued by Stephanie Tuohy, Issuing Assistant at East Sussex County Council (ESCC), in relation to the alleged Blue Badge misuse attributed to Mr Riccardo Gresta. The document was produced by a public officer acting in an institutional capacity and forms part of the evidential record in the matter ESCC vs. Riccardo Gresta. Its inclusion in this archive ensures that official statements remain preserved, verifiable, and available for contestation‑proof analysis within the Civic Observer documentation framework.

Provenance and authenticity
The PDFs displayed on this page, integrated via iframe, were obtained through lawful disclosure during ESCC proceedings. Their provenance guarantees that the documents remain authentic, traceable, and preserved under the same archival standards applied to all Statements of Witness in this dossier. These materials form part of the verified evidentiary chain and are included to ensure transparency, accuracy, and procedural integrity.

The PDFs referenced above are authorised for download exclusively for study and research purposes. Any use outside these permitted purposes — including legal use against this website or its owner — is strictly prohibited. Their publication serves solely to support transparency, academic analysis, and the reconstruction of procedural events.

This page forms part of the Civic Observer archive and provides a procedural and documentary rebuttal grounded in verifiable postal evidence. The Royal Mail Certificate of Posting dated 22 April 2022, together with the associated tracking reference, confirms that a single appeal letter (MJ/02) was dispatched and delivered to East Sussex County Council at St Mary’s House on 25 April 2022. The recorded weight of 10 grams corresponds to one A4 sheet plus an envelope, excluding the possibility of multiple enclosures. This directly contradicts the allegation that additional documents were included. The documents published in this archive are essential for reconstructing the factual sequence and ensuring the integrity of the defence record.

Published documents and evidentiary links

Royal Mail Certificate of Posting (22 April 2022)
Confirms dispatch of a single A4 sheet plus envelope, with a recorded weight of 10 grams.

Postal Tracking Confirmation
Verifies delivery on 25 April 2022, signed for by “KING”.

Internal ESCC Notes (27 April 2022)
Contain formatting anomalies such as the non‑standard date entry “27//4/2022” and typographical inconsistencies. These notes refer generically to a “letter received”, which aligns with the postal evidence indicating that only one appeal letter was enclosed.

Mobility Assessment Report (MAR)
Authored by Ann Longden and later attached to her sworn witness statement. Its presence in the evidentiary chain demonstrates that ESCC relied on the MAR as supporting material, despite procedural inconsistencies in how appeal documentation was logged and referenced.

Procedural significance

The comparison between certified postal evidence and ESCC’s internal notes reveals a material discrepancy. While the certificate of posting and tracking data confirm the dispatch of a single document, ESCC’s records ambiguously imply the presence of multiple enclosures. This inconsistency raises concerns regarding the accuracy of the administrative process and the handling of evidentiary material.

By publishing the certificate of posting, postal tracking, ESCC notes, and the MAR, the Civic Observer archive ensures transparency and traceability. The record demonstrates that:

Royal Mail Certificate of Posting – 22 April 2022
Posting date: 22 April 2022, 15:18
Service: Royal Mail Signed For 2nd Class
Weight: 0.010 kg (10 grams)
Destination: St Mary’s House, BN21 3UU
Postage: £2.08
Delivery: 25 April 2022, signed by “KING”
Tracking reference: WD263867897GB

Interpretation
A weight of 10 grams corresponds to one A4 sheet plus one envelope. Multiple enclosures would have resulted in a weight of at least 15–20 grams and triggered a higher tariff. Royal Mail systems automatically register weight; manual alteration is not possible.

Conclusion
The dispatch of 22 April 2022 contained only one letter. Attribution of additional contents is technically implausible and contradicted by certified postal evidence.

12 April 2022 – Medical appointment at MSK, Eastbourne
19 April 2022 – Date appearing on document MJ/03
22 April 2022 – Envelope sent by former carer
25 April 2022 – Delivery confirmed by Royal Mail
27 April 2022 – ESCC staff opened the envelope

Observation
The phrasing “on or before 27 April 2022” is imprecise when compared with the documented delivery and processing dates.

Extract from ESCC Notes (27 April 2022):
“Letter received from client stating he wishes to appeal… He has sent in letter dated 19/4/22 form Independent Consultant Neurologist Angus Anderson…”

Analysis

The documentary record demonstrates that the appeal letter alone was dispatched and received. The allegation of additional enclosures is technically incompatible with the postal evidence and procedurally inconsistent. These discrepancies appear disproportionate when compared with the documented facts.

Individuals who have experienced disproportionate or inconsistent administrative practices may recognise similar patterns in this case. The Civic Observer archive is curated to ensure transparency, accountability, and the preservation of an accurate evidentiary record.

The Royal Mail Certificate of Posting dated 22 April 2022 (weight 10g, tariff £2.08, tracking WD263867897GB) confirms that only one appeal letter was dispatched and delivered on 25 April 2022. Despite this, ESCC internal notes (27//4/2022) and the witness statement of Mark Jobling (19 May 2022) both assert that a second medical letter dated 19 April 2022 was enclosed in the same envelope. This assertion is incompatible with the postal evidence: the recorded weight excludes multiple enclosures, and the delivery timeline confirms a single document. The contradiction between certified postal records and institutional testimony is therefore irreconcilable.

The next section will examine documents MJ/02 and MJ/03, together with the witness statement of Mark Jobling. The analysis will highlight how formatting anomalies, truncated dates, and testimonial inconsistencies reinforce the contestation‑proof nature of the archive. Further records will illustrate how institutional testimony diverges from certified documentary evidence.

Across the entire evidentiary corpus produced by ESCC — including the witness statements of Mark Jobling, Stephanie Tuohy, Ann Longden, and Mandy Covey, together with the MAR Notes of 27/28 April and 9 May 2022 — a consistent pattern emerges: the institutional narrative is internally aligned yet evidentially fragile, built on subjective impressions, retrospective assumptions, and internal annotations showing indicators of post‑editing. These sources repeatedly assert the existence of multiple enclosures and rely on misidentified medical details, despite the absence of chain‑of‑custody documentation or forensic verification. In sharp contrast, the Voluntary Declaration of the former carer and the certified postal evidence (Royal Mail 10‑gram certificate, tracking WD263867897GB, delivery on 25 April) form a coherent, independently verifiable record confirming that only the appeal letter was enclosed. The independent testimony aligns with immutable physical evidence, while the institutional materials derive from a narrative constructed around a document never sent and inconsistently logged. Taken together, the contrast reveals a structural divergence: the prosecution’s statements appear coordinated but uncorroborated, whereas the independent and certified records remain consistent, traceable, and contestation‑proof.