On 19th February 2013, F complained to the Social Worker’s new regulators, the Health Care Professional Council, HCPC, for permitting access to F confidential file without consent, as defined in F’s May 2010 Amendment to his Information Sharing Agreement, which he failed to follow.
The details of F’s complaint are described on the HCPC page.
However, the following merits separate mention:
HCPC told F on 25th July 2013, that RBKC had confirmed at (a) to them that “Mr Leak was not directly responsible for the disclosure of you information to the legal team.”
at (b) F is told that ” it has been explained to us (by RBKC) that the legal team have access to all documentation which they require for their role”.
at (c) RBKC states that “if a FORMAL REQUEST was made by the legal team for information contained in a Service User’s file, it would be the Service Manager within the team, who would have authorised the sharing of your information with the legal department, NOT Mr Leak”.
(d) Mr Leak was NOT in a position to obstruct the legal team from obtaining information from your files”.
.A FORMAL REQUEST must have existed, as F’s 146 Confidential documents, were culled from his file in Mr Leak’s custody. Some documents containing not only explicit disclosure of his HIV+ status, but also full clinical details about his condition’s progress, the life-saving medication he must take and the inevitable side effects he suffers as a consequence.
The ONLY “formal request” that F was made aware of was made by the LGO to RBKC was on 24th August 2011, for “all the assessment documents for this matter (F’s complaint) and general comments.” This is addressed in detail on the LGO page.
As F’s HIV relevant information was disclosed to the LGO, the “formal request”, must have contained an explicit request for this information. Taking into consideration the nature of the information, this could ONLY be disclosed under certain circumstances, satisfying the NHS Statutory Restrictions of data handling.
On a number of occasions, F asked RBKC to provide him with a copy of the “formal request”, which would in fact, render Mr Leak impotent from preventing access to F’s confidential file and permit a wholesale removal of 146 documents, sent to the LGO by Ms Parker, RBKC’s Chief Solicitor and a Monitoring Officer.
RBKC told F that they do not have a copy of this document. Obviously, RBKC does not consider the LGO’s Request as the “formal request” quoted to the HCPC.
The question now arises:
F cannot understand why HCPC failed to ask RBKC, during their “investigation” for a copy of this crucial document, so powerful to remove Mr Leak’s legal obligations in respect of F’s confidential information..
It can be alleged that RBKC dreamt up the above narrative regarding Mr Leak’s powers, to perhaps initially convince HCPC of their right to disclose F’s HIV status and clinical information. However, it may have become convenient for the HCPC to accept this explanation, as it would get Mr Leak off the hook, bamboozle F and wholeheartedly hope that he would accept this explanation, shut up and go away.
HCPC told F that they have asked for information from various parties, including the LGO. However, there is NO evidence that Mr Leak was ask for his version of events, or even made aware of F’s complain to the HCPC.
It is quite possible, due to RBKC bad controls over access to personal information, that Mr Leak was NOT aware of the cull of 146 documents from F’s file, as stated in HCPC’s response dated 23rd July 2013..
It can be alleged that RBKC manufactured of the notion that a “formal request” existed, could be construed as an attempt by RBKC at “Perverting the course of justice“. .
We understand that “the word pervert can mean “alter” but the behaviour does not have to go that far – any act that interferes with an investigation or causes it to head in the wrong direction may tend to pervert the course of justice.
(This information is based on public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v2.0. The original information can be found here; https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order-offences-incorporating-charging-standard).
In order to properly understand the allegation of “perverting the course of investigation/justice”, On 24th May 2018, F asked the Ministry of Justice for clarification. In their reply dated 29th May 2018, F was referred to the Information Commissioner. F replied on 30th May 2018.
As of 1st March 2019 F has not contacted the ICO. But will do very shortly.