Tribunal to probe claims of police spying on journalists
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) examines complaints related to surveillance by state bodies.
A judicial tribunal will later examine allegations of widespread police spying on journalists.
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) in London is to probe claims that investigative reporters in Northern Ireland were subject to unlawful covert intelligence by the police.
The actions of three police forces – the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Durham Constabulary and the Met Police – are set to be scrutinised.
A complaint was initially brought to the IPT by documentary makers Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney, who were controversially arrested in 2018 as part of a police investigation into the alleged leaking of a confidential document that appeared in a film they made on a Troubles massacre.
Preparatory hearings before the IPT subsequently have heard further claims that PSNI spying operations extended to several other reporters operating in the region.
In the case involving Mr Birney and Mr McCaffrey, the PSNI asked Durham Constabulary to investigate the leak of a Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland document that appeared in the documentary, No Stone Unturned, into the 1994 loyalist paramilitary massacre in the village of Loughinisland in Co Down.
Given the ombudsman’s role is to probe allegations of wrongdoing against police in Northern Ireland, the PSNI said it would have presented conflict of interest issues for it to have taken on the leak probe, and therefore asked for Durham to lead on the case.
In 2020, the High Court in Belfast ruled that warrants secured by police to raid Mr McCaffrey and Mr Birney’s homes and business offices in Belfast were wrongly obtained.
The PSNI later unreservedly apologised for how the men had been treated and agreed to pay £875,000 in damages to the journalists and the film company behind the documentary.
Mr Birney and Mr McCaffrey lodged a complaint with the IPT asking it to establish whether there had been any unlawful surveillance of them.
Former Durham detective Darren Ellis, who took a leading role in the investigation, is set to be a key witness before the tribunal.
As well as the events around the documentary, the tribunal – chaired by Lord Justice Singh – has also been presented with evidence related to two other instances of police surveillance against Mr McCaffrey in 2013 and 2011.
In the 2011 incident, it is alleged that the Met Police illegally obtained Mr McCaffrey’s phone data – material the PSNI subsequently secured seven years later as part of another probe into the reporter’s work.
Earlier this year, the BBC instructed lawyers to contact the tribunal over claims one of its ex-investigative reporters was spied on by police.
The allegations relate to former BBC journalist Vincent Kearney and his work on a 2011 Spotlight documentary that probed the independence of the Police Ombudsman’s office.
Mr Kearney, who is the current northern editor at RTE, has said he is determined to find out what happened.
The tribunal also heard claims that the PSNI undertook six-monthly trawls of the phone data of “troublemaker” journalists to see if they were in contact with officer sources.
Under pressure to address the claims aired at the IPT, the PSNI published a report on its surveillance of journalists in the summer.
The report revealed that the PSNI had made 323 applications for communications data relating to journalists since 2011.
However, it said the vast majority of applications were related to journalists who were victims, suspects or witnesses to crime.
The report, which was compiled for the Northern Ireland Policing Board – the PSNI’s oversight body – said of the 323 applications, 10 sought to identify a journalistic source using covert powers.
As well as the report, PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher also announced an independent review, headed by Angus McCullough KC, of any use of surveillance against journalists and other specific groups by police in Northern Ireland.
Mr Boutcher has insisted much of the public concern over the spying claims has arisen because of “misinterpretation of documents” made available in redacted form at the tribunal.