Trigger-event SOP

The Project Office › Plans › Trigger-event SOP

Version 1
Approval D-19
Clock Standby
Side project SP-REOPEN

What to do, in order, on the day a record shows dishonesty in the 1986–87 evidence, a concealed record, or government involvement in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2. The discovery date (T0) starts the clocks. Tick each step as it is done; ticks stay on this device. Live ranking of possible triggers: reopen triggers.

Standby. No trigger confirmed. The clocks start on the discovery date (T0) once Gate 1 is passed.

1. Preserve and log (T0 to T0 + 1 day)

Custody log, hashes, three copies

Write the custody log entry: date and time first seen, who saw it, where (URL, archive reference, letter) and how it was obtained. This entry is T0.Project Manager · T0, same day
Download the original file exactly as received; never edit it. Scans: keep the highest resolution.Project Manager · T0
Record the sha256 of every file in the custody log.Project Manager · T0
Web pages: Internet Archive “Save Page Now”, and note the capture URL.Project Manager · T0
Add a wayback.bucklerfamily.estate item (PDF to R2, text to git) with the same sha256.Project Manager · T0 + 1 day
Offline copy on a separate device; three copies in three places.Executive · T0 + 1 day
Chain of custody: every later copy, transfer or reading logged with date, person and hash.Project Manager · Ongoing

2. Independent check and Gate 1 (by T0 + 14 days)

Is it genuine and does it show what it appears to show?

A second reader checks the record against its source and against the records already held.Project Manager · T0 + 7 days
Ask the holder for an official or certified copy (FOI, SAR, archive copy order).Project Manager · T0 + 7 days
Write what it shows and what it does not, with page references, into the custody log.Project Manager · T0 + 14 days
Gate 1: verified? Yes → step 3. No → keep on file; the reopen-loop keeps scoring it.Executive · T0 + 14 days

3. Notices, legal advice and logging (by T0 + 28 days)

Preservation notice, lawyer, HubSpot

Preservation notice to each body holding related records: list them and ask that they be kept unaltered pending legal advice. Facts only.Executive · T0 + 7 days
Instruct a lawyer: a public access barrister (Bar Standards Board directory), a solicitor (Law Society Find a Solicitor), Advocate (the Bar Pro Bono Unit), the Law Centres Network, or a university pro bono clinic.Executive · T0 + 14 days
Send the evidence pack: the record, the custody log, the 1987 judgment, the 1989 Strasbourg decision (14464/88) and the reopen-loop scores.Project Manager · T0 + 14 days
Ask for a written opinion: which test is met, which route, which deadline.Executive · T0 + 28 days
HubSpot: one task per step with its due date, one note per document; Issue Register entry for the trigger.Project Manager · Same day as each step

4. Gate 2, letter before action, reports and press (from T0 + 6 weeks)

Only on counsel’s written opinion

Gate 2: the opinion names a route. No route → record the reasons and keep the evidence.Executive · T0 + 6 weeks
Letter before action with the lawyer (Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, para 6): facts, what is sought, a reply period of 14 days to 3 months.Executive · After Gate 2
Reports where the opinion points to a crime or a public-body failure (official bodies listed below).Executive · After Gate 2
Press: one factual release citing the documents, after the letter or report; officials by role; no private individuals named.Executive · After step 7 or 8
Gate 3: the Executive approves the route; the side project moves to filing.Executive · T0 + 8 weeks

Reporting bodies

South Wales Police, or Action Fraud (the national reporting centre).
Crown Prosecution Service: charging decisions come through the police; a private prosecution is preserved by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, s.6.
Independent Office for Police Conduct: police conduct, after a complaint to the force.
Public Services Ombudsman for Wales: a Welsh public body, within one year of first notice (PSOW Act 2019, s.8(1)(c)).
Information Commissioner: records altered or destroyed after a request (FOIA 2000, s.77).
The constituency MP and the Member of the Senedd.

5. The routes: test, time limit and who decides

A to G, each counted from T0 or from a later decision

Route	Test	Time limit	Decides	Source
A. Reopen the 1987 appeal (CPR 52.30)	Court of Appeal will not reopen unless (a) necessary to avoid real injustice, (b) the circumstances are exceptional, (c) there is no alternative effective remedy. Permission needed; decided on paper; no appeal from the decision. Taylor v Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ 90.	no fixed limit in the rule; apply promptly after discovery	Court of Appeal (single judge on permission)	source
B. Set aside for fraud (Takhar)	Fresh claim in the High Court. Test (RBS v Highland para 106, adopted in Takhar para 56): conscious and deliberate dishonesty in evidence, a statement or a matter concealed; material, an operative cause of the court’s decision. Takhar para 57: no need to show it could not have been found with reasonable diligence before the trial.	no fixed limit set by Takhar; issue promptly; linked money or land claims run from discovery under s.32	High Court (Business and Property Courts in Wales, Cardiff)	source
C1. New Strasbourg application	Against the United Kingdom only. Exhaust domestic routes first, then lodge a completed form within four months of the final domestic decision (Art 35(1), four months since 1 Feb 2022). Must carry relevant new information beyond Application 14464/88 (Art 35(2)(b)).	4 months from the final domestic decision	European Court of Human Rights	source
C2. Restore Application 14464/88	No route: 14464/88 was declared inadmissible on 14 April 1989; restoration under Art 37(2) and Rule 43(5) covers only struck-out applications.	closed	—	source
C3. Rule 80 revision	Revision is for a judgment of the Court, within six months of learning a decisive new fact. 14464/88 ended with a Commission decision, not a Court judgment, so Rule 80 does not reach it. It applies to any future Strasbourg judgment.	6 months from learning the fact (future judgments only)	—	source
D. Limitation Act s.32: claims from discovery	Where the action is based on the defendant’s fraud, or a relevant fact was deliberately concealed, the limitation period starts at discovery (or when it could with reasonable diligence have been discovered). Then 6 years for tort or contract (s.2, s.5) and 12 years for recovery of land (s.15).	6 years from discovery (tort/contract); 12 years (land)	High Court / County Court	source
E. Criminal report	South Wales Police or Action Fraud; the CPS decides charges on a police file; private prosecution is preserved by Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 s.6.	indictable offences: no time limit; summary-only: 6 months from the offence (MCA 1980 s.127)	Police; Crown Prosecution Service; courts	source
F. Judicial review of a new decision	For a decision a public body takes now (a refusal, a registration, a planning step): claim form promptly and in any event within 3 months of the grounds arising; 6 weeks for planning decisions.	promptly and within 3 months (CPR 54.5(1)); planning 6 weeks (54.5(5))	Administrative Court / Planning Court, Cardiff	source
G. Ombudsman	Public Services Ombudsman for Wales for a Welsh public body; usually after the body’s own complaints process.	within 1 year of first notice (PSOW Act 2019 s.8(1)(c))	Public Services Ombudsman for Wales	source

Order of play: B (set aside) is the main route for a judgment obtained by dishonest evidence; A is the fallback where no other remedy is open; D runs beside B for money or land; C1 comes only after the last domestic decision; E, F and G run on their own facts.

6. Decision tree

34 nodes and 36 branches; the same data drives the terrain paths and the roadmap

Dishonest evidence in 1986–87 trigger
same day→ trigger: Trigger confirmed
Concealed record trigger
same day→ trigger: Trigger confirmed
Government involvement trigger
same day→ trigger: Trigger confirmed
Trigger confirmed start
T0 = the date the record is first seen, logged in the custody log→ Log the discovery
Log the discovery step
same day (T0)→ Preserve and hash
Preserve and hash step
within 24 hours of T0→ Independent check · records at risk: Preservation notice · Log in HubSpot
Independent check step
within 14 days of T0 (target)→ Gate 1: record verified?
Gate 1: record verified? gate
decide by T0 + 14 days→ no: Not verified: log and keep watching · yes: Instruct a lawyer
Not verified: log and keep watching deadend
no clock
Preservation notice step
within 7 days of T0 (target)
Instruct a lawyer step
opinion requested within 28 days of T0 (target)→ Gate 2: legal opinion
Log in HubSpot step
same day as each step
Gate 2: legal opinion gate
target T0 + 6 weeks→ no route: Opinion: no route meets its test · route open: Letter before action · crime or public-body failure: Report to the authorities
Opinion: no route meets its test deadend
no clock
Letter before action step
reply period: 14 days (straightforward) to 3 months (very complex), PD Pre-Action Conduct para 6(b)→ Press plan · Gate 3: route chosen
Report to the authorities step
after Gate 2; PSOW within 1 year of notice→ Press plan · report: E. Criminal report
Press plan step
after S7 or S8
Gate 3: route chosen gate
target T0 + 8 weeks→ A: A. Reopen the 1987 appeal (CPR 52.30) · B: B. Set aside for fraud (Takhar) · D: D. Limitation Act s.32: claims from discovery · F: F. Judicial review of a new decision · G: G. Ombudsman · C2: C2. Restore Application 14464/88 · C3: C3. Rule 80 revision
A. Reopen the 1987 appeal (CPR 52.30) route
no fixed limit in the rule; apply promptly after discovery→ refused: Permission refused (final) · granted: Appeal reopened and reheard
Permission refused (final) deadend
final
Appeal reopened and reheard outcome
court timetable→ final domestic decision: C1. New Strasbourg application
B. Set aside for fraud (Takhar) route
no fixed limit set by Takhar; issue promptly; linked money or land claims run from discovery under s.32→ dismissed: Claim dismissed · set aside: 1987 judgment set aside
Claim dismissed deadend
appellant’s notice 21 days from the decision (CPR 52.12)→ final domestic decision: C1. New Strasbourg application
1987 judgment set aside outcome
court timetable
C1. New Strasbourg application route
4 months from the final domestic decision→ judgment: Strasbourg judgment
C2. Restore Application 14464/88 deadend
closed
C3. Rule 80 revision deadend
6 months from learning the fact (future judgments only)
Strasbourg judgment outcome
court timetable
D. Limitation Act s.32: claims from discovery route
6 years from discovery (tort/contract); 12 years (land)→ innocent purchaser: Innocent purchaser bar
Innocent purchaser bar deadend
statutory bar
E. Criminal report route
indictable offences: no time limit; summary-only: 6 months from the offence (MCA 1980 s.127)→ no further action: No further action
No further action deadend
F. Judicial review of a new decision route
promptly and within 3 months (CPR 54.5(1)); planning 6 weeks (54.5(5))→ final domestic decision: C1. New Strasbourg application
G. Ombudsman route
within 1 year of first notice (PSOW Act 2019 s.8(1)(c))

Machine-readable: sop-branches.json (nodes, edges, deadline rules).

7. The four-month figure

It belongs to a new Strasbourg application, counted from the last domestic decision

Four months is the Strasbourg time limit: an application must be lodged “within a period of four months from the date on which the final decision was taken” (Art 35(1) ECHR, as amended by Protocol 15; four months since 1 February 2022, six months before).

It does not run from the discovery of new evidence. The final decision in the 1987 case was the House of Lords’ refusal of leave on 3 March 1988, and the 1988 application was lodged inside the limit then in force, on 3 May 1988. A new four-month clock needs a new final domestic decision first: in practice the end of a set-aside action (route B), or of a challenge to a new public-body decision (route F).

The clocks that start at discovery are the Limitation Act, s.32 (route D) and, for any future Strasbourg judgment, Rule 80’s six months (route C3).

8. The 1989 Strasbourg application

Application 14464/88, William Buckler v the United Kingdom

Introduced 3 May 1988; registered 12 December 1988; declared inadmissible by the European Commission of Human Rights on 14 April 1989.
Complaints: Article 6 (fair trial), Article 8 (home), Article 1 of Protocol 1 (possessions), Article 13 (effective remedy).
Reasons: Article 6 not substantiated; the possession order “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society” to protect the owner held by the courts; no interference with possessions because the courts held the property belonged to another; appeals that fail are still an effective remedy.
The decision was not published on HUDOC. The four-page decision is held: scan (wayback EV-0122).
Not the same case: Buckley v the United Kingdom (application 20348/92, judgment 25 September 1996) concerns a Gypsy caravan site in Willingham, Cambridgeshire (HUDOC).
Open: what the Strasbourg registry still holds of file 14464/88 (I-076).

Registers: R-045 · I-076 · WP-REOPEN · D-19 · side project · reopen triggers

PRINCE2 7 outlines: sources · product set · archive