Watchdog kept in dark as PSNI spied on journalists

Covert surveillance operations targeting journalists, including one later ruled unlawful, were withheld from the UK’s surveillance watchdog, it can be revealed.

The PSNI did not tell the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) about two operations, from 2018 and 2023, despite being legally obliged to do so and despite inspectors specifically asking the force about any activities involving journalists.

Sir Brian Leveson, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, acknowledged these failures in a letter to the Northern Ireland Policing Board’s human rights advisor, John Wadham.

The correspondence was published in the board's annual human rights report.

Mr Leveson, previously one of the UK’s most senior judges, noted his inspectors were not informed of the operations by the PSNI until years later, despite specifically asking about any activities involving journalists at the time.

The PSNI only informed IPCO about the surveillance operations in 2025, after their existence had become public.

A spokesman for IPCO said that the PSNI were under a legal duty to inform them of any surveillance relating to journalists at each inspection, and that “any failure to comply with this duty is taken extremely seriously.”

Unlawful surveillance

In August 2018, the PSNI authorised a covert surveillance operation in a bid to unmask the journalistic sources of Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey.

This operation was ruled unlawful in 2024 by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, a court which looks at complaints against the UK’s intelligence services.

Mr Leveson said police were expected to flag any journalist surveillance during annual inspections.

“There is no indication in the 2019 inspection report for PSNI that my inspectors were notified of any covert activity conducted against journalists, or with the intention of identifying a journalistic source,” he wrote.

“Their inspection report records PSNI’s assertion that no confidential material had been collected during the inspection period,” he added

“The question remains why the (surveillance) was not specifically brought to my inspectors’ attention in 2019, given its stated objective of identifying a journalistic source.”

PSNI chief constable Jon Boutcher, in a letter to the Policing Board about the failure to disclose the operation to inspectors until May 2025, wrote that “no reason or record can be located to explain why this was not highlighted to IPCO as intended.”

He said that the PSNI central record of surveillance authorisations “has been enhanced to prevent this occurring again,” and that this new system will be reviewed in the 2026 IPCO inspection.

Responding to the revelations, journalist Barry McCaffrey said the PSNI had “misled” the surveillance watchdog.

“Throughout four years of submissions to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal investigation into the unlawful surveillance of Trevor and myself the PSNI repeatedly claimed that it had been given a clean bill of health by the IPCO,” he said.

“What has emerged now is that, like so many others, the IPCO were cynically misled by the PSNI with key evidence of wrongdoing being deliberately withheld from its inspectors, who were supposed to be holding the PSNI to proper scrutiny.

“This is just the latest in a long list of PSNI attempts to hide and cover-up what it knew was the unlawful surveillance of journalists.

“The Policing Board must now order a full public inquiry. The PSNI has shown that it will never tell the truth to any other investigation."

2023 operation

Mr Leveson, the IPCO commissioner, also expressed concerns over a 2023 surveillance operation targeting an unnamed journalist, which was again not disclosed during inspection.

“I understand that you are also aware of a similar case which has recently come to light of surveillance against a journalist in 2023,” he wrote.

“Again, this authorisation was not brought to my inspectors’ attention, despite their specific enquiry regarding any operations involving confidential journalistic or legally privileged material.”

Mr Boutcher wrote that the 2023 surveillance operation was “limited to public 'tweets' and did not involve private communications.” He said IPCO was informed on 26 March 2025.

The target of the 2023 surveillance operation is not named the correspondence. However, earlier that same month the PSNI admitted to monitoring the social media accounts of investigative journalist Donal MacIntyre.

Mr McCaffrey said there were now questions for the PSNI about all other surveillance operations against journalists.

“These two cases are the only two incidents of PSNI surveillance of journalists in the public domain that occurred since the establishment of IPCO in 2017,” he said.

“It just so happens these are the two cases that the PSNI did not tell IPCO about, and not until their existence was in the news?”

More recently, fresh allegations of PSNI surveillance against journalists have come to light.

Computer Weekly reported that the PSNI engaged in sustained surveillance of BBC journalists in Northern Ireland from at least 2006 to 2022. This included an ‘Operation Grimmicaeie’ in 2022.

The Detail asked the PSNI and the IPCO whether this surveillance was flagged during the relevant annual inspection, but did not receive a response.

“Assurances”

The PSNI has consistently cited IPCO inspections as a safeguard against the misuse of covert surveillance powers.

Mr Boutcher has previously said that IPCO’s oversight provided “additional reassurances,” and that the force “has fully engaged with and will continue to cooperate fully with IPCO.”

In a report on covert surveillance produced in June 2024, the PSNI argued that “there are robust, regular and probing inspection arrangements with IPCO to ensure all the powers available to the Chief Constable are used lawfully and appropriately now. They specifically consider the areas of journalistic and legally privileged material in every inspection and the Chief Constable has sought specific assurance on this.”

Daniel Holder, director of the Committee for the Administration of Justice, said the new revelations raised serious questions for the PSNI and the oversight system.

"Whilst there are also serious questions for the PSNI these current revelations are just further evidence that we cannot continue with a system that is dependent on the PSNI and other bodies here exercising covert powers voluntarily telling the oversight body what they are doing,” he said.

"This is not the first time that the surveillance powers oversight body has missed wrongdoing in the use of covert powers here.

"What we need is to go back to what the Patten Commission recommended - which was a specific Commissioner for Covert Law Enforcement in Northern Ireland with a range of powers to ascertain covert policing techniques are being used within the law.”

A spokesman for IPCO said that the PSNI are required to inform them “of any surveillance relating to journalists at each inspection."

"Individuals working within PSNI, as with all public authorities, are under a legal duty to provide the (commissioner) with all information required for him to fulfil his oversight functions."

“It is important to note that IPCO’s oversight regime is not dependent on voluntary disclosures by those we oversee. Inspectors use a variety of techniques, including ‘dip sampling’ of authorisations, to proactively identify compliance issues and verify responses to requests for information.

“The requirement imposed on PSNI to highlight any authorisations relating to journalists is there to provide an additional layer of assurance. Any failure to comply with this duty is taken extremely seriously.”

Policing Board chair Mukesh Sharma said the board “has expressed its serious concerns regarding the use of covert surveillance.”

“The Board awaits the findings of the McCullough Review and remains open to all courses of action to ensure proper accountability.”

PSNI deputy chief constable Bobby Singleton said he welcomed the Policing Board’s annual human rights report.

“The oversight provided by the Policing Board is crucial to maintaining public confidence in policing and we are grateful to them for their work in this important area,” he said.

“We will continue to work closely with the Policing Board’s Independent Human Rights adviser as we consider and respond to the content and recommendations of this wide-ranging report.”