39 of 59

Forensic Assessments

Ministry of Defence

Forensic assessment · v1.1.0 · updated 1 November 2026

Response status
Redirected
Last contact
30 October 2026
Next date on file
9 November 2026 (m confirms the request has been logged with a target response date of 9 November 2026.)
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: Since 18 October 2026, 2 emails are on file: 1 sent, 1 received (0 with content, 1 automatic acknowledgements). The response status is unchanged: “Redirected”. Most material: 21 October 2026, sent, clarification given (ref FOI2026/23272): The requester follows up on FOI2026/23272. Next date on file: 9 November 2026. Nothing here changes the earlier current finding unless stated above; this is a log of contact, not a finding about any person.

  1. Sentclarification givenref FOI2026/23272

    The requester follows up on FOI2026/23272.

1 automatic acknowledgement
  1. FOI2026/25726

    MOD Information Rights Team relogged the 10 Oct request together with the 29 Oct nomenclature supplement as FOI2026/25726, with a 20 working day target date of 26 Nov 2026.

The assessment as last published

Carried over unchanged from v1.0.0 (18 October 2026). Links point inside this site.

Page ID: 1574 · Title: Ministry of Defence — Forensic Assessment · Evidence status: Not yet labelled — see the Editing Protocol · Version: 1.0.0 · Editing Protocol

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 contents.

Forensic Assessment — Ministry of Defence

Scope: MOD records only where a concrete Great House Farm/Llandough connection is demonstrated.

Current evidence position

The reviewed material does not establish that MOD determined the private title, possession or demolition of Great House Farm. The Department should not be inserted into the accountability chain without a specific record or statutory function. 🕒

Forensic control test

Any asserted MOD role must identify the record, date, responsible function, information received and action taken. Historic government involvement elsewhere is not a substitute for such evidence.

Current finding

As at 10-10-2026, the material reviewed does not establish Ministry of Defence wrongdoing or an operative role in the historic events. This is a source-limited assessment, not proof that no relevant record exists. 🕒10-10-2026

Human action

Keep this route parked unless existing court, police, Wales Office, planning or heritage records identify a concrete MOD document. Then issue a narrowly targeted request.

Acceptance: parked with a documented trigger condition.

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 “Ministry of Defence”. Every event label links directly to the page containing the source. It avoids duplicating source narratives. It records mention/appearance, not culpability. The displayed date is a source/title date cue, not automatically the date on which the named institution acted. This matters for newspaper stories, later summaries and titles naming more than one event; open the source before attributing an act. Search indexing is a discovery aid, not proof of exhaustive coverage. 🕒

Source date cue (not necessarily institutional action date) Event / source — open evidence Record class
Date not explicit in title Records Access Chronology Published Wiki evidence page
Date not explicit in title Source Conflicts Register — Where Public-Authority Replies and the Wiki Disagree 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.

Date Correspondence / register item (click to open) Reading rule
29 Sep – 2 Oct 2026 R48 — Replies to the 28 Sep 2026 preservation notices Register row contains a name/alias match; inspect the linked row to distinguish sender, recipient and incidental mention.

Related navigation: FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register · Records Access Chronology · Evidence Library

MOD FOI2026/09190 — internal review dated 10-10-2026: A dedicated evidence record is available at GHF-E169. The MOD describes archive searches and targeted Army Secretariat and Counterterrorism and United Kingdom branch searches, reports no matching information located in those sources, separately applies section 23(5) NCND to Special Forces-related information, acknowledges a timeliness failure without clearly identifying the stage in its conclusion, and states personal-information elements were referred for separate subject access processing. This response does not establish historical involvement or absence of involvement. Keep it distinct from FOI2026/09019 unless the MOD confirms a relationship.

Page version & change log

Current version: 1.0.0

VersionDate (UTC)Editor (human or agent name)ChangeSource / evidence
1.0.02026-10-18T15:30Zthe editorsFooter standardised; earlier log rows carried into this table; no content changeEditing 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

4 dated interactions, oldest first; 14 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
DateDirectionReferenceTypeVerbatim
19 April 2026received—redirected elsewherePlease direct any Operational content to [email redacted]
10 October 2026sentFOI2026/09019clarification givenSubject: FOI2026/09019 — clarification of the non-Special-Forces remainder and existing retention/search records
16 October 2026sentFOI2026/23272preservation noticeSubject: Re: FOI2026/23272 - 1988 Dispossession of Great House Farm, Llandough
21 October 2026sentFOI2026/23272clarification givenSubject: Re: Request for information - ref FOI2026/23272 - 1988 Dispossession of Great House Farm, Llandough Non-SF Information

(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

Versions

1.1.02026-11-01Moved to the Forensic Assessments webapp; dated “Since last assessment” section added; response status re-read.
1.0.02026-10-18As published on the Legal Wiki.

Small print: dotted links explain a word (see the glossary); amber-shaded links list every name the records use for the same thing.