Debate contribution: Independent Inquiry into the Alleged Use of Wiretapping of Northern Ireland Journalists

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 4 June 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

4 June 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Independent Inquiry into the Alleged Use of Wiretapping of Northern Ireland Journalists

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4493800

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

I am glad, Mr Speaker, that you mentioned the Contempt of Court Act and the ongoing investigation by the investigatory powers tribunal. In having the debate, it is important that we are careful about some of what we say but also robust in standing for a free press, which is the cornerstone of a democratic society and has all too often in Northern Ireland in the past and today been undermined routinely and structurally.

The matter that we debate first in the SDLP's fourth Opposition day is about exactly that: the compromising, the undermining and the hounding of a free press, which is the cornerstone of any normal democratic society.

In many ways, it should be difficult to be shocked in this place. Nevertheless, for many of us, it was genuinely shocking when we learned last year — nearly a year ago — about the surveillance of the phone of Barry McCaffrey, an award-winning journalist. Barry McCaffrey only found out that his phone was being eavesdropped upon when he made a complaint to the investigatory powers tribunal about a separate, later incident. That later incident — the chronology here becomes somewhat complicated, and I will not go through it all in minute detail — was, of course, the wholly inappropriate 2018 arrest of Barry and fellow journalist and filmmaker Trevor Birney and the searches of their homes. In that case, police were investigating Barry and Trevor's sourcing for their 2017 documentary on the Loughinisland massacre, in which six people were killed, and for which nobody was ever charged. It is the most bitter irony that the police arrested those two journalists while the alleged killers in the Loughinisland massacre, who were named in the documentary, remain at large. Barry and Trevor were doing a job that the criminal justice system had failed to do. They were providing a measure of public accountability for the Loughinisland victims and survivors and their families. To do that, they used the most basic, fundamental tool of journalism: sources. The use and protection of sources is not some sinister trick that journalists use to vex public authorities or, indeed, to annoy politicians like us. It is a central and critical part of the legitimate work of journalism, and, as I said, journalism is fundamental to upholding a free, democratic society. All too often in this society, journalism, as with other democratic norms, has been compromised. We know that Reporters without Borders and others cite Northern Ireland as one of the most dangerous places in Europe to be a journalist. We know that we have a litigation regime that is very often used to silence public-interest journalism. We also know that, in the past and in the not-so-distant past, paramilitary organisations and other organised crime gangs have used the threat of violence against journalists. There is a context in this society that is important to acknowledge, and that is that we have not been a exemplar in upholding free journalism. Journalism has been critical to us and to this society, both through the dark days of our conflict and in the years after the conflict, in upholding norms, holding all of us to account and showing us a way to a better, more democratic future. It is important that we set out that context. At the beginning of today's proceedings, I should have declared an interest as the person who founded the all-party group on press freedom and media sustainability. Let us go back to the context of the wiretapping of Northern Ireland journalists. Barry McCaffrey learned last year, via the IPT, that that surveillance had happened. Then more revelations emerged, including those earlier this year about the potential surveilling of Vincent Kearney, a former BBC, now RTÉ, journalist. There is a very real concern that the wiretapping of journalists and others is routine in Northern Ireland. We need to get to the bottom of that. It simply cannot be acceptable that the police feel empowered — if this is what they are doing, and we need to understand whether it is — to routinely surveil, in one form or another, the phones or other digital devices of journalists operating in a free press. I now come on to the amendment that has been laid by the Alliance Party. I want and hope to build as much consensus as possible in the Chamber today. Our motion calls on the Justice Minister to set up an independent inquiry. The reason for that is that several organisations — Amnesty International, the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) and others — are clear that we need an independent inquiry into the surveillance and phone tapping of journalists in Northern Ireland, so serious is the issue. It is true that the Act that created the Northern Ireland Policing Board provides the Policing Board with the power to undertake such inquiries. It is also true that, later this week, it will be discussed again at the Policing Board. I acknowledge that there is some common ground with the Alliance Party and that the Policing Board has a role to play here, but I want to hear more from the Minister of Justice when she speaks to the House about her view. She has commented on it in the past, and I acknowledge that she leads a liberal party. I do not think there is any doubt that the Alliance Party believes in a free press. However, I would like to hear what the Minister of Justice intends to do should the Policing Board, for whatever reason, not decide to undertake a full independent inquiry under the powers that it has. That is what needs to happen. If it is done via the Policing Board, then, yes, we think that that can be the way, but if the Policing Board is not going to do it, or if, for budgetary or other reasons, it cannot do it, an inquiry needs to be established, and the Minister who should establish it is the Justice Minister. I would like to hear from the Minister, given that her colleagues laid today's amendment, whether her view is that there is no possible way that she, at any point in the future, can announce a public inquiry. We think that if the Policing Board cannot do it, the Justice Minister should, because the revelations that we heard about today and over the past year or two are simply too serious to ignore. Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney have high profiles and have done extraordinary high-profile investigative journalism, not just on Loughinisland but on a whole range of other areas. They have the public profile to defend themselves and make a robust case on their position around the IPT and on their surveillance. We, as an Assembly, need to ensure that all those journalists who do not have the profile of Barry and Trevor, or the experience and confidence, do not feel intimidated into not doing their job robustly. It is critical that we get to the bottom of what has happened over the past decade or more. Were journalists in Northern Ireland routinely surveilled by the PSNI? If so, why? I appreciate that there is an ongoing inquiry by the investigatory powers tribunal, and I appreciate that the Policing Board is going to discuss this matter later in the week, but neither of those things — as long as we do not stray into details that are sub judice — matter. It is important that this Assembly makes clear its position: this is not acceptable and should the Policing Board not be able or willing to proceed with a full independent inquiry, the Minister of Justice will do so. I want to hear from the Minister on whether she intends to bring forward an independent inquiry in the event that the Policing Board cannot or will not. I also acknowledge the news that came out yesterday, which was that the Chief Constable, Jon Boutcher, has appointed a KC, with Amnesty International, the CAJ and some others advising that KC to review the evidence. I would be cautiously positive about that as a step forward, but it is not an independent inquiry. Whilst it is a first step towards a proper guarantee that we are not routinely surveilling journalists, it cannot be the end point. It is clear that there needs to be an independent inquiry. Yesterday's news was a positive step forward, but we need absolute clarity. We cannot have the free press in this society compromised. I await to hear the Justice Minister's response to what we have discussed today, but I otherwise commend this Opposition motion to the Assembly.

1,449 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:36 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification