BP vs Buckler 1987

Dear Ministry of Justice,

I am writing to request any information you hold regarding the case BP vs. Buckler (1987).
My Member of Parliament for the Vale is Kanishka Narayan.

I am specifically seeking:

1. Letters sent by Alun Michael MP to the Lord Chancellor in 1988
2. Responses from the Lord Chancellor’s Department
3. Internal records related to BP Properties vs. Buckler, Great House Farm, or the eviction thereof

I believe I have identified several ways in which the UK Government has acted in a manner that meets its own legal definition of a terrorist organisation. And this does not include my participation in this Regime's crimes (operating from behind a GPMG machine gun, during the Iraq war). To clarify:

I believe my family’s farmland and farmhouse was unlawfully stolen (BP vs. Buckler, 1987).
I believe my home at 40 Lombard Street, Barry was stolen (Manchester Building Society).
I believe my 36-day-old son was abducted from my home at Stockeld Park, Leeds:
— I have never received proof of life
— Every attempt I’ve made to seek answers has been met with police attempt to kidnap me and court efforts to silence me e.g. a threat of five years' imprisonment for alleged “harassment” for EMAILING demanding to know where my abducted boy is.

If I find evidence the UK Regime now qualifies as a terrorist organisation—at least by its own definition of one—I will call for United Nations and UNICEF intervention, and invoke Article 61 of the Magna Carta.

- I am a certified and experienced military commander and leader.
- I left my military career with honours.
- My source of employment 2022 - 2024 was the Welsh Government.
- As of 2025 I am no longer allegiant or in Oath.
- I remain bona fide (never been charged or arrested for a crime)

Regards,

Sion Buckler
📞 +44 203 137 7118
📞 [phone redacted]

Dear Disclosure & Library Team,

Thank you for your response.
I am requesting an internal review of FOI 250628005 on the basis that I do not consider the search scope and archival coverage to have been adequately evidenced in relation to historic case-linked material.

I note your confirmation that a search identified only the Court of Appeal judgment in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] and that no further departmental records were located.

However, the request also concerned:
Ministerial correspondence (including correspondence involving Alun Michael MP and the Lord Chancellor’s Department)
Internal departmental records relating to the case and associated enforcement/possession proceedings
Any related administrative handling or correspondence streams
Given that the matter proceeded through:
High Court proceedings
Court of Appeal (1987)
House of Lords refusal (1988)
and was subsequently the subject of an application to the European Commission of Human Rights (Application No. 14464/88, inadmissibility decision dated 14 April 1989)
it is reasonable to expect that some level of governmental or departmental engagement, case referencing, or archival correspondence indexing may have existed at the time, even if subsequently destroyed under retention policies.

1. Search adequacy and archival handling
Please confirm in the internal review:
Whether searches included legacy file series and archived departmental correspondence systems (not only current MoJ holdings)
Whether any cross-referencing was undertaken using case identifiers, party names, or linked litigation references
Whether record destruction policies were applied generally or whether any exceptions exist for litigation-linked ministerial correspondence

2. Retention and destruction assertion
The response states that relevant 1988 policy records “would have been destroyed” and refers to retention schedules (including ministerial correspondence retention periods).
For the purpose of review, please clarify:
Whether this conclusion is based on a file-by-file audit or a general retention policy assumption
Whether any retention exemptions applied to litigation-linked or European-level human rights correspondence arising from domestic proceedings

3. Reasonable expectation of trace records
Given the formal judicial and ECHR procedural history, I would expect at minimum the possibility of:
indexing records
correspondence registers
case tracking references
or archived departmental metadata even where full files no longer exist

If none exist, please confirm whether this conclusion is based on a structured archive search or policy inference.
I request that the internal review focuses specifically on whether the search methodology was sufficiently broad to capture archived or legacy case-related material, rather than only extant MoJ operational records.

Yours sincerely,