GHF-E169 — MOD FOI2026/09190 Internal Review, 10 October 2026
Catalogue UID: GHF-E169 · Custodian / source copy: Buckler family evidence repository
Retrieval trail: see the item-specific provenance and follow-up notes below; cross-check the FOI & public-authority reply register, records access chronology and missing-records register. This register link is a route to the pursuit trail, not proof that a request has been made for every listed item.
What the document records
- The MOD internal review is dated 10 October 2026 and concerns FOI2026/09190.
- The review states that the original request was received on 1 May 2026 and answered on 29 May 2026, before the stated 2 June deadline.
- It describes searches across MOD archives and targeted searches in the Army Secretariat and Counterterrorism and United Kingdom branches, including for the Military Aid to the Civil Authorities (MACA) aspect.
- It states that no information matching the request was located in the sources searched and concludes that no information in scope was held.
- Separately, it says the MOD neither confirms nor denies whether it holds information relating to Special Forces involvement, invoking section 23(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
- The review apologises for delay and concludes that the request was not handled in accordance with timeliness requirements, but does not clearly identify in its concluding paragraph which stage caused that finding.
- It says elements of the appeal concerning personal information were referred for processing as a subject access request. That statement does not establish that the SAR has been completed or that records have been found.
Forensic significance and limits
This is evidence of what the MOD formally stated on 10 October 2026 about its searches and FOI handling. It is not, by itself, proof that military personnel were involved in the 1988 events, that they were not involved, or that no relevant historical record was ever created. A present-day not-held finding must be kept distinct from the section 23(5) NCND position, and from any separate question of historical creation, transfer, retention or disposal of records.
Follow-up actions
- Ask the MOD to clarify the scope of the general “no information held” conclusion in relation to the separate NCND statement, without asking it to confirm or deny the protected matter.
- Submit a separate, narrowly scoped FOI request for existing, disclosable search instructions, logs, tasking records, recorded search parameters/results and internal-review timeline records.
- Track the separate subject access request by its own reference, receipt date, deadline and substantive outcome.
- Consider an ICO complaint promptly about the review’s timeliness and the adequacy/clarity of the recorded search conclusion. Do not assume that a clarification request extends any complaint deadline.
- Keep this record separate from the earlier MOD matter FOI2026/09019 unless the MOD confirms a relationship.
Provenance and source access
Custodian: Ministry of Defence, Information Rights Team, CIO-FOI-IR@mod.gov.uk (as printed in the letter).
Original source URL: Not established from the supplied document; do not substitute the MOD homepage for a source-document URL.
Source copy: “20261010 FOI2026 09190 Buckler Farm Dispossession Rev.pdf”, supplied in the research conversation. The complete source should be retained with the case file and linked here when a verified public or repository URL is available.