In 2011, the PSNI reached out to the Metropolitan Police to keep an eye on BBC journalists in Belfast. Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney shared this troubling information with MPs on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, revealing a bigger issue: other police forces in the UK might be tracking journalists’ phones as well.
They spoke to the committee after a tribunal found that both the PSNI and the Met had illegally surveilled them to uncover their confidential sources. Evidence from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal last year revealed that over four months in 2011, the Met monitored more than 4,000 calls and texts for the PSNI. “A UK police force was spying on the BBC and sharing that illegal surveillance with at least two other forces,” Birney stated.
Birney explained that the PSNI’s tactics shifted in 2002 when former Met chief Hugh Orde became the head of the then Royal Ulster Constabulary. Orde’s policy aimed to stop leaks by criminalizing police officers talking to journalists without senior approval. This move turned into a sweeping surveillance operation that targeted journalists as well.
McCaffrey argued that what the Met did went far beyond mere defense. “Monitoring calls between journalists? That’s offensive, not defensive. They were actively spying to identify sources,” he said. By 2011, the PSNI was “breaking rules on an industrial scale,” he added.
Both journalists described how the PSNI tried to sidestep rules meant to protect the confidentiality of journalists. In one instance, when McCaffrey reached out to the PSNI’s press office in 2013 with a simple question about a corruption investigation, he suddenly found himself labeled a criminal suspect just 40 hours later.
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal confirmed in December 2024 that Birney and McCaffrey had indeed been unlawfully surveilled. In June, the PSNI enlisted Angus McCullough KC to probe these serious allegations, but Birney voiced skepticism. He believed the review’s mandate was too limited and criticized its arbitrary cut-off date of 2011, stating it wouldn’t uncover the roots of these spying operations or the culture within the police that led to them.
The committee learned that the review couldn’t investigate whether journalists faced live interception of their communications, leaving a significant gap. McCaffrey underscored this issue, saying, “If journalists are being monitored daily, this review can’t uncover that.” He urged PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher to fully cooperate to ensure transparency.
Interestingly, the most crucial disclosures about surveillance came not from the PSNI but from Durham Police, revealing details from the PSNI’s own files. Seamus Dooley from the NUJ described the situation as a “judicial strip tease.” He noted the unusual manner of unfolding evidence he had never witnessed before.
McCaffrey expressed deep-rooted mistrust in the PSNI’s commitment to transparency with the McCullough review, detailing a long history of “delay, obfuscation, and denial.” He highlighted a lingering “whispering campaign,” which began after their arrests. According to him, individuals within the PSNI hinted that any support for them would backfire on political figures and organizations.
The journalists emphasized that a public inquiry is essential to understanding what they perceive as a “culture of contempt” within the PSNI towards journalists, lawyers, and activists. They insisted that any inquiry must encompass not just the PSNI but also the Met, due to their recent history of unlawful surveillance of BBC journalists.
Séamus Dooley conveyed the chilling impact of this surveillance on press freedom. Without the ability to assure sources of confidentiality, journalists feel increasingly vulnerable. He concluded that the mindset at the PSNI views journalists as adversaries, attributing a sense of contempt towards anyone who seeks to shed light on issues.