Witness Statements of Mandy Covey and Mark Jobling
The Case File > Witness of Statements > Prosecution Witnesses
Analysis of Procedural Irregularities Arising from the Witness Statements of Mandy Covey and Mark Jobling
Methodological Note
This analysis is based exclusively on the two formal witness statements issued by:
- Ms Mandy Covey, Medical Secretary, Neurosciences – Hurstwood Park Hospital
- Mr Mark Jobling, Investigations Officer – East Sussex County Council (ESCC)
dated 18 and 19 May 2022 respectively.
No assumptions, interpretations or allegations are made.
The purpose is to identify, in a strictly documentary manner, the procedural gaps, omissions, and unreferenced authorisations that emerge directly from the content of the statements.
The purpose is to identify, in a strictly documentary manner, the procedural gaps, omissions, and unreferenced authorisations that emerge directly from the content of the statements.
1. Absence of a Formal Request from ESCC
Both statements describe:
- an initial telephone contact from ESCC,
- followed by an in‑person visit to the hospital.
Neither witness refers to:
- a written request,
- a statutory notice,
- a formal authorisation,
- a verification of investigatory powers,
- an external enquiry log,
- any Information Governance (IG) or Caldicott procedure.
Documentary finding:
The interaction appears to rely solely on verbal representations made by an ESCC officer.
The interaction appears to rely solely on verbal representations made by an ESCC officer.
2. No Stated Legal Basis for Accessing Clinical Records
Ms Covey states:
“I checked the electronic records for Mr Gresta…”
The statement contains no reference to:
- the lawful basis relied upon,
- an internal authorisation to access data outside a clinical context,
- a procedure for handling external enquiries,
- a record of the access in an audit log.
Documentary finding:
The access to clinical data is described without any accompanying legal or procedural framework.
The access to clinical data is described without any accompanying legal or procedural framework.
3. No Consultation with Information Governance or the Caldicott Guardian
Neither statement mentions:
- IG involvement,
- Caldicott Guardian consultation,
- escalation to a senior data‑protection officer,
- any form of supervisory review.
Documentary finding:
The individuals responsible for safeguarding patient data do not appear to have been consulted.
The individuals responsible for safeguarding patient data do not appear to have been consulted.
4. No Verification of ESCC’s Claimed “Criminal Investigation”
Mr Jobling states that he initiated a “criminal investigation”.
However:
However:
- ESCC is not a law‑enforcement body,
- ESCC does not possess criminal investigatory powers,
- no verification of authority is mentioned by the hospital witness.
Documentary finding:
The hospital appears to have accepted the term “criminal investigation” without verification.
The hospital appears to have accepted the term “criminal investigation” without verification.
5. Access to Clinical Records Outside Any Clinical Purpose
Ms Covey accessed:
- the patient’s neurology records,
- the 2019 clinical letter,
- appointment history.
This access was:
- not linked to treatment,
- not linked to patient care,
- not linked to an internal NHS purpose.
Documentary finding:
The access was triggered solely by an external body, not by clinical need.
The access was triggered solely by an external body, not by clinical need.
6. Disclosure of Clinical Information to an External Authority
Mr Jobling reports:
“She stated that the last Neurology Letter regarding Mr Gresta was dated 2019.”
Ms Covey confirms:
“I can produce this letter as my exhibit (MC/01).”
This constitutes:
- disclosure of clinical information,
- extraction of a clinical document,
- transfer to an external authority.
No authorisation is referenced.
Documentary finding:
The disclosure of clinical data is described without any procedural or legal justification.
The disclosure of clinical data is described without any procedural or legal justification.
7. Assessment of Document Authenticity by a Non‑Clinical Administrative Role
Ms Covey states:
“I immediately drew the conclusion that it was not genuine.”
She further provides:
- linguistic analysis,
- stylistic comparison,
- content evaluation.
However, her role is described as:
“typing medical letters and answering the phone to patients.”
Documentary finding:
The assessment of authenticity was carried out outside the scope of the stated role.
The assessment of authenticity was carried out outside the scope of the stated role.
8. No Internal Records, Logs or Notes Referenced
Neither witness mentions:
- access logs,
- internal notes,
- IG reports,
- Caldicott reviews,
- external enquiry registers,
- written authorisations.
Documentary finding:
The event, as described, appears unaccompanied by institutional traceability.
The event, as described, appears unaccompanied by institutional traceability.
9. Production of a Formal Statement for an External Body
Ms Covey states:
“I can produce this letter as my exhibit (MC/01).”
Mr Jobling states:
“I obtained a statement from Mandy…”
There is no reference to:
- internal approval,
- procedural guidance,
- supervisory oversight.
Documentary finding:
A formal witness statement was produced without reference to any internal governance process.
A formal witness statement was produced without reference to any internal governance process.
Conclusion (Documentary Only)
The two statements, taken at face value, reveal multiple procedural omissions, including:
- no written request from ESCC,
- no verification of investigatory powers,
- no stated legal basis for accessing clinical data,
- no IG or Caldicott involvement,
- no internal authorisation,
- no audit trail referenced,
- disclosure of clinical information without documented justification,
- administrative evaluation of clinical document authenticity,
- absence of institutional records accompanying the event.
This analysis does not attribute responsibility.
It simply identifies the procedural gaps that emerge directly from the official documents.
It simply identifies the procedural gaps that emerge directly from the official documents.
