GHF-E145 — European Commission of Human Rights application 14464/88 and the 14 April 1989 inadmissibility decision

page · Updated 2026-10-17T11:18:45 · Original source

EVIDENCE PENDING

As of 10 October 2026, no inline evidence image or source-file link was identified in this page content; this does not establish that a custodian holds no record.

Wiki catalogue reference: GHF-E145 · 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.

1. The evidence

Evidence object area: none yet.

Catalogue UID: GHF-E145 · Custodian/source copy: bucklerfamily.estate. Preview and provenance status as at 10-10-2026.

Description

3. What is not known

2. What is known

Catalogue: GHF-E145 · Type: Application and decision · Date: lodged 3 May 1988; registered 12 December 1988; declared inadmissible 14 April 1989 · Holder: European Court of Human Rights archive; the project record states the case file was destroyed under the Court’s retention policy · Evidence status: PLACEHOLDER decision text and metadata to be sought

DOCUMENTED FACT. William Buckler complained under Articles 6, 8, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol 1. The Commission found the fair-trial complaint unsubstantiated, the loss of the home lawful and justified, and no “possession” because the courts had held the property belonged to another (BP v Buckler; Strasbourg review).

What title documents, if any, were put to the Commission.
Whether any retained metadata shows what was destroyed and when.

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

LEGAL INFERENCE. The decision did not determine the British title chain.

Used on: ReOrg

Interpretive assessment date: 10-10-2026.

Research lead: the 1974 survey and evidence potentially relevant to Application 14464/88

The HER entry GGAT02038s cites R. F. Suggett’s December 1988 note and describes H. J. Thomas’s 1974 survey. The survey reportedly recorded historic architectural features and considered a possible medieval core. It predates the house’s demolition on 6 December 1988; the Suggett note postdates demolition. Heneb reportedly said in October 2026 that the underlying source file had been digitised and uploaded to Archwilio. The late availability of source material should be distinguished from the earlier public HER citation.

Forensic question: was the 1974 survey or its findings available to the family and their representatives when preparing Application 14464/88, and was it placed before the former European Commission of Human Rights? The currently identified evidence does not answer that question. Nor does the survey alone prove a legal duty to list the house or establish that the demolition was unlawful. The application file’s reported destruction makes it particularly important to identify surviving correspondence, counsel’s papers, Cadw records and the original survey/source-file metadata.

Cross-reference: GHF-E137 — 1974 survey; Heneb forensic review; Commission forensic review.

Supplementary chronology note — HER source file and 1974 survey (17 October 2026)

The HER entry GGAT02038s referred to H. J. Thomas’s 1974 survey and cited R. F. Suggett’s December 1988 note. Heneb reportedly stated on 14 October 2026 that the underlying source file had been digitised and uploaded to Archwilio; its 16 October response addressed the schedule of records. This distinguishes the earlier public citation from later availability of the underlying source material.

The 1974 survey predates demolition on 6 December 1988, while Suggett’s note postdates demolition. A focused unresolved question is whether the survey or its findings were available to the family’s representatives and included in the submissions for application 14464/88. The application was declared inadmissible on 14 April 1989. Evidence presently identified does not establish what the Commission received or that the outcome would have differed. Historic significance alone did not automatically confer Grade II listing or prove demolition unlawful.