A former detective has been accused of falsely claiming that a solicitor representing journalists subjected to illegal police surveillance tried to purchase a firearm, a tribunal has been informed.
Darren Ellis made allegations during a private hearing that solicitor Niall Murphy was involved in acquiring a firearm after he came across a WhatsApp message, meant as a joke, on a phone confiscated by police from a journalist he was representing.
These allegations were disclosed in a session of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which is examining claims that the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), Durham Constabulary, and the Metropolitan Police unlawfully monitored the phones of journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey.
In 2018, the PSNI and Durham police arrested Birney and McCaffrey unlawfully as part of an operation aimed at uncovering a confidential source that had provided information for their documentary film on police collusion in paramilitary killings that occurred in Loughinisland in 1994.
It was previously revealed in court that Ellis, who was leading the investigation, had requested the Law Society of Northern Ireland to probe Murphy’s law firm, KRW. However, he expressed disappointment when the regulatory body chose not to take action.
Evidence made public during the tribunal hearing indicated that Ellis’s allegations regarding firearms were based on a joking message found among the seized items. Notes from an investigating officer noted that on December 18, 2018, McCaffrey messaged Murphy asking if he knew anyone looking for a “9mil with two clips and about 20 shells.”
The WhatsApp message, which was recovered and shown in court, depicted a 9mm spanner, two paper clips, and a box of seashells.
Ben Jaffey KC, representing the journalists, argued that Ellis could not have genuinely believed in the seriousness of the WhatsApp message. “Even Ellis can understand a joke,” he remarked, asserting that McCaffrey’s “only offense was his sense of humor.” He added that the inclusion of the WhatsApp message and another related exchange between McCaffrey and Murphy indicated that police appeared to have intruded on their legally protected communications. “It appears there was an extensive examination of materials likely to be privileged,” he noted.
Cathryn McGahey KC, representing the PSNI, contended that while Ellis might have read the text, he might not have seen the accompanying image, emphasizing that she wasn’t implying that Murphy was indeed attempting to supply firearms.
Stephen Toal KC, representing Birney, argued that this situation further illustrated the unbalanced nature of Ellis’s inquiry.
On Wednesday, it surfaced that Ellis, the detective responsible for the “unlawful” surveillance of McCaffrey and Birney, had attributed responsibility for a “perverse” court ruling to Catholics. He claimed that a senior PSNI officer had warned him that Irish judges were essentially “sectarians in robes.” In response, the officer, Barbara Gray, expressed her profound anger over Ellis’s insinuations regarding her views on judicial independence.
The tribunal also heard that Ellis had sent emails to PSNI colleagues, criticizing the lord chief justice of Northern Ireland, Declan Morgan, for his determination that the PSNI had unlawfully acquired warrants to arrest the two journalists. He termed the lord chief justice’s ruling an “absolute outrage,” one that “beggars belief,” claiming his criticism arose from the belief that the PSNI didn’t have sufficient time to respond.
Toal described Ellis’s perspective towards the journalists, legal representatives, and the judiciary as “deeply disturbing,” suggesting that the former detective regarded McCaffrey and Birney as “terrorists politically motivated to embarrass police.” He concluded, “For press freedom to prevail, the police must lose this case.”
The proceedings are set to continue today.