Home Office
Forensic assessment · v1.1.0 · updated 1 November 2026
Translation pending: the assessment text below is in English, the authoritative record.
- Response status
- No contact on file
- Last contact
- None on file
- Next date on file
- None on file
- Earlier version
- v1.0.0, published 18 October 2026 on the Legal Wiki
Since last assessment
18 October 2026 to 1 November 2026
Our reading: No new correspondence is on file since the last assessment. The earlier finding stands unchanged.
The assessment as last published
Carried over unchanged from v1.0.0 (18 October 2026). Links point inside this site.
Chronology and catalogue links — assessed 10-10-2026: See the Institutional Involvement Roadmap (1877–2026) for the date-ordered institution, people and evidence sequence. The reported 1988 Cadw-to-Minister spot-listing letter has its own placeholder at GHF-E152; the original has not been attached to that page as at 10-10-2026. A placeholder records an evidence gap, not the letter’s content or proof of misconduct.
Forensic Assessment — Home Office
Scope: Home Office involvement only where a concrete historical policing/public-order/security record is identified.
Current evidence position
The materials reviewed so far do not establish a Home Office decision that determined the Great House Farm title, possession or demolition. The project therefore does not attribute a substantive historic role to the Department merely because central government appears elsewhere in the wider record.
Forensic control test
Only a specific identified file, correspondence trail or delegated function should bring the Home Office into the substantive accountability chain. Any claimed involvement must identify date, officer/role, legal function, information received and action taken.
Current finding
As at 10-10-2026, the material reviewed does not establish Home Office wrongdoing or an operative role in the historic events. This is a source-limited assessment, not proof that no relevant record exists.
Human action
Do not spend further project effort here unless a court, police, Welsh Office or records response identifies a concrete Home Office record. If such a lead appears, create a targeted request rather than a broad enquiry.
Acceptance: route remains parked unless a specific documentary lead emerges.
Institutional appearance timeline — linked source index
Coverage rule: this is a chronological navigation map of published Wiki source pages found by searching the current site index for “Home Office”. Every event label links directly to the page containing the source. It avoids duplicating source narratives. It records mention/appearance, not culpability. Dates are transcribed from page titles where available; “Date not explicit in title” means the linked source must be consulted. Search indexing is a discovery aid, not proof of exhaustive external coverage. 🕒
| Date shown by source title | Event / source — open evidence | Record class |
|---|---|---|
| c. 30 April 1988 | GHF-E090-N07 — “Chainsaw farmer vows to fight on” (c. 30 April 1988) | Published Wiki evidence page |
| c. 30 April 1988 | GHF-E090-N07 — c. 30 April 1988: “Chainsaw farmer vows to fight on” | Published Wiki evidence page |
| 1994 | GHF-E148 — 1994 Cotswold Archaeology report, Condition 18 discharge and the developer’s counsel’s opinion | Published Wiki evidence page |
| 7 October 2026 | GHF-E106-R33 — Amgueddfa Cymru reply to FOI 2026-036 (5 & 7 October 2026): further collections search | Records-access response |
| Date not explicit in title | Press Archive — Newspaper Transcripts | Published Wiki evidence page |
Records-access register appearances — direct row links
Rows below match the institution’s name or an alias in the reply register’s sender/reference or recorded description. A match shows an appearance in the records trail, not necessarily an act by this institution.
No matching reply-register row was found for this name/alias set. That is not evidence that no correspondence exists; broaden the alias search when new records are added. 🕒
Related navigation: FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register · Records Access Chronology · Evidence Library
Page version & change log
Current version: 1.0.0
| Version | Date (UTC) | Editor (human or agent name) | Change | Source / evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0.0 | 2026-10-18T15:29Z | the editors | Footer standardised; earlier log rows carried into this table; no content change | Editing Protocol, 18 Oct 2026 |
| 2026-10-18 (rollout date; exact time not separately recorded) | OpenAI-assisted maintenance agent (GPT-6) | Installed this page-local append-only change log and agent instructions. Existing page content was not intentionally rewritten. | User-directed site-wide changelog standard. Saved via WordPress API; public rendering of this page not yet independently checked. |
Agents and editors: follow the Editing Protocol.
Case file
This file is built for a future reparations claim. Facts are as the records show them; interpretation is labelled “our reading”. Items marked “not checked” have not been compared with the original record.
(a) Conduct timeline
0 dated interactions, oldest first; 0 automatic acknowledgements are left out. Quotations are verbatim from the institution’s email; where the reply’s substance was an attachment, the email subject is quoted instead.
Show the timeline
| Date | Direction | Reference | Type | Verbatim |
|---|
(b) Inconsistencies and gaps
None found in the correspondence on file.
(c) Quarantined-name links
Records on the quarantine register (Kissed Frogs) that sit in, or came from, this institution’s holdings. None is treated as settled.
No quarantined-name record on the register is linked to this institution’s holdings.
(d) Duty and liability — our reading
Liability indicators (our reading): none
- Duty
- Freedom of Information Act 2000 s.1 and s.10 (confirm or deny, and supply held information within 20 working days); Environmental Information Regulations 2004 for land and environmental records; records management under the s.46 Code of Practice; Public Records Act 1958 selection and transfer for central government records.
- Indicators the duty was not met
- none found in the correspondence on file.
- Evidence still needed to confirm
- the institution’s retention schedule and disposal record for the series in question; the catalogue or file list it searched; any internal review or complaint outcome.
- Likely extent of exposure if confirmed
- An ICO decision notice or a records-management finding; any reparations claim would also need a link between a records failure and the loss.
(e) Evidence still needed
- Inspect the files it names, or their transferred copies at the archive. for paid visit list
Versions
| 1.1.0 | 2026-11-01 | Moved to the Forensic Assessments webapp; dated “Since last assessment” section added; response status re-read. |
| 1.0.0 | 2026-10-18 | As published on the Legal Wiki. |