Debate contribution: Independent Inquiry into the Alleged Use of Wiretapping of Northern Ireland Journalists
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist 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 4493832
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The motion and amendment go right to the heart of the core values of a free press. Over recent years and even going back a number of decades, investigative journalism has shone a bright light into the many dark corners across this country and exposed many scandals that the public would otherwise never have heard about. The Ulster Unionist Party fully supports our journalists in shining that light, which is often done at great personal risk to those who conduct such investigations. We support the press in carrying out their duty, but it goes without saying that it must be carried out in a lawful manner and always performed in the public interest. A free press is an essential part of every citizen's right to freedom of expression. Equally, we support the police in carrying out their duty to protect lives and prevent sensitive information being leaked. A leak of such information could lead to the collapse of a long-running investigation or, in the worst-case scenario, put someone's life in danger. The police and the press must respect each other's duty to collect evidence that will help to put those who do wrong behind bars. It is vital that the police and the press act within the law and respect their boundaries. Another cornerstone of the freedom that we enjoy is ready access to legal advice. What passes between clients and their lawyers must be confidential. Compromising that rule could be damaging to the human right of an accused person to receive the best legal advice and guidance. The police have a range of information-gathering methods available to them. At all times, permission to deploy any of those methods is, quite properly, strictly controlled. Senior management grants permission only if legislative guidelines and public interest tests are fully met. That is the bar that should be met. Given the serious nature of the allegations being made against the PSNI about surveillance methods that it has used on journalists and lawyers, an urgent investigation could be fully justified. As the Member who moved the motion said, it will be interesting to hear from the Justice Minister on the role that the Policing Board may play in light of the Alliance Party amendment. The motion proposed by the Opposition and the Alliance amendment recognise the same need, but they differ on how an investigation may be set up. The amendment is correct in stating that the PSNI is:
"operationally responsible to the Northern Ireland Policing Board".
However, the motion:
"calls on the Minister of Justice to launch an independent inquiry".
Perhaps, towards the end of the debate, we will be able to get consensus; that would be good. It is important to clarify what has happened around the allegations, which have led to an inquiry being required to establish exactly how the police have acted in relation to those matters, and that the circumstances are fully explored to ensure that journalists and lawyers, who offer a vital public service, can go about their work unhindered and in the knowledge that their endeavours remain confidential. We owe journalists and lawyers a speedy resolution to these matters to protect them as they carry out their lawful work, but we also owe it to the PSNI to clarify the actions that it took, particularly in relation to what has been alleged in the press and in the Chamber today. It is important that we have public confidence in policing and equally important that journalists and the legal profession can go about their lawful work with confidence that confidentiality is protected at all times.
598 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.98 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.