Subject: Re-Opening of BP vs Buckler 1987 From: Sion Buckler Direction: sent Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:55 UTC Institution: Crown Prosecution Service Refs: none Archive id: gm-1a06945131f0d7b3 ------------------------------------------------------------ Sir/Madam, I write to formally place before the Crown Prosecution Service evidence concerning suspected historical fraud and related criminal conduct arising from the dispossession and subsequent treatment of the former Great House Farm, Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan. I am currently investigating the matter and preparing proceedings concerning the underlying proprietary dispute. I am also considering the institution of a *private prosecution* in respect of any criminal offences disclosed by the evidence. I specifically invite the CPS to consider, at this stage, whether this is a case in which the Director of Public Prosecutions should exercise the power under *section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to take over the conduct of a private prosecution*, should proceedings be instituted. The principal concern is not simply the disputed ownership of land. The historical evidence appears to disclose a possible pattern in which the family's established occupation and proprietary position were progressively characterised as merely permissive. Of particular significance is the apparent treatment of the occupation in the *1955 proceedings*, followed by the more explicit attempt in *1974* to establish a rent-free licence arrangement concerning the property. I am investigating whether these were independent legal positions or whether they formed part of a longer and coordinated course of conduct intended to create or manufacture a documentary/legal basis for treating an established proprietary occupation as permissive, thereby facilitating the acquisition or retention of the land. The subsequent involvement of *BP Properties Ltd and BP Pension Trust*, the registration of title WA231076 in 1982, and the litigation culminating in the 1987 Court of Appeal proceedings are material to that investigation. I do not ask the CPS to determine the civil title dispute. The question I ask is whether the documentary sequence discloses evidence capable of supporting criminal offences involving fraud, conspiracy, false or misleading representations, concealment of material information, or other offences arising from the alleged acquisition or preservation of property rights. I am particularly concerned that conduct occurring at different stages may only become intelligible when examined as a single historical sequence rather than as isolated civil proceedings. The apparent attempt to establish permissive occupation in 1955, the subsequent licence proposal in 1974, the later registration of title, and the representations made in the litigation may therefore warrant consideration together. I recognise that the CPS will need sufficient evidence to apply the Full Code Test and that the existence of a civil dispute does not itself establish criminal conduct. I am not presenting the allegation as proved. I am presenting the documentary evidence and asking the prosecuting authority to determine whether it warrants criminal investigation and/or prosecution. The CPS's published guidance confirms that a private prosecutor may ask the CPS to take over a private prosecution and that, when specifically requested to intervene, the CPS must make a decision whether or not to take it over. The guidance further recognises that the CPS may take over and continue a private prosecution where the Full Code Test is satisfied and there is a particular need for the CPS to conduct the prosecution, including in serious or complex cases or cases involving substantial disclosure issues. I therefore expressly request that the CPS: 1. *Consider whether it would be prepared to take over a private prosecution under section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 if proceedings are instituted;* 2. *Confirm whether the matter should instead be referred to an investigative authority for investigation before the CPS considers taking over proceedings;* 3. *Identify the appropriate CPS division or office to which the evidence should be submitted; and* 4. *If the CPS is not prepared to consider taking over such proceedings, expressly confirm that position and the reason for it.* I am able to provide an indexed evidential bundle containing the relevant 1955 and 1974 material, historical conveyances and plans, Land Registry documentation concerning WA231076, relevant court records and a chronology identifying the specific documentary inconsistencies and matters which I consider require investigation. I would prefer the CPS to have the opportunity to consider the matter at this stage rather than for a private prosecution to be commenced without first giving the public prosecuting authority an opportunity to determine whether it considers the case sufficiently serious, complex or otherwise appropriate for public prosecution. Please therefore treat this correspondence as a *formal request for consideration of CPS involvement and potential exercise of the DPP's section 6(2) power*, and confirm the appropriate procedure for submitting the evidence for that purpose. There's 133 houses approved for development on land that I believe to be concealed sacred even holy ancient welsh woodland. And my land as surviving, unestiguished claim and heir and successor of that claim has been a position our family have maintain unto our suspicious and conveniently timed deaths (my father while planning was approved for 20 houses, my nan before him in the 2 weeks she will have had to challenge BP registering and merging our land as theirs at the land registry in 1983). The current possessor holds defective title, in my humble estimation. And I hold interest in the land, which is being ignored along with my concerns, by local authories who have vested interest in the development of the houses. The councillor for Llandough and MP both will not reply. The council clerk retired. This is being dragged into the shadows and I suspect clandestine warfare, silence and violence. Whereas I am trying to keep the matter open, transparent and in the public eye as it is a matter of public interest being a site of historic and archeological signficants I.e. monestry, roman villa, county treasure home, medieval burials etc. My investigation is ongoing. But I do see a multi generational racket was used for a land grab. And I am a military warfare professional, not just the son of William Buckler. Yours faithfully, Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant) Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member