GHF-E106-R51 — NPCC FOI 3065/2026 search-disclosure response (9 October 2026)
Wiki catalogue reference: GHF-E106-R51 · Custodian / source URL: Buckler family evidence repository
Evidence preview
Preview not embedded. As at 10-10-2026, no inline image or document preview was identified in the evidence section of this page. Use the custodian/source link below to inspect the item.
Catalogue UID: GHF-E106-R51 · Custodian/source copy: open source object. Preview and provenance status as at 10-10-2026.
Description
Forensic reading rule
What the letter records
Catalogue: GHF-E106-R51-A1. Institution: National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC). Reference: FOI 3065/2026. Letter date: 9 October 2026.
Original document: Open the complete original PDF. SHA-256: 8cb438666856564f8e45d9f2c40902a47c96d56d25744b21a473cedb917ba171.
The response identifies two search terms: “Great House Farm” and “Llandough”; five repository/source descriptions: NPCC shared drives, ChiefsNet, ACPO Archives, a folder named “NPCC Counter Terrorism Coordination Committee”, and “Records of the Association of Chief Police Officers 1856–2005”; and four consulted functions: NPCC Crime Coordination Committee, NPCC Business Support, Counter Terrorism Coordination Committee and NaCTSO. 🕒10-10-2026
The NPCC said it held no information captured by Q4 (search logs/instructions/notes), Q5 (recorded results/conclusions as framed in the request) or Q6 (recorded enquiries about custody, transfer, retention or disposal). It nevertheless supplied an information-retrieval email to policing leads as a gesture of goodwill, and said results were captured by email and disclosed through earlier responses. 🕒10-10-2026
This record preserves a potential scope ambiguity for clarification: the retrieval email is itself a recorded process document, while the NPCC treated formal search records under Q4 as not held; it also described email-captured results while saying it held no information under Q5. This does not by itself prove a contradiction; it requires reconciliation of the meanings of “search log”, “recorded results” and which individual responses were disclosed. The internal-review process was separately reported as having no information answering Q1–Q6 for the review. 🕒10-10-2026
Transcription
Open transcription
No verbatim transcription is included in this entry as at 10-10-2026. Where the source contains legible text, transcribe it faithfully and mark illegible or uncertain words rather than silently reconstructing them.
Interpretation and wider context
Read this item alongside independently catalogued corroborating and contradictory material. The existence of a record establishes that the item is catalogued; it does not prove every statement within it. Distinguish source content from inference and identify unresolved questions.
Interpretive assessment date: 10-10-2026.