Police defend redactions in Loughinisland warrants
INFORMATION on the frequency of contact between journalists and staff at the Police Ombudsman’s Office is being withheld to protect the integrity of an ongoing investigation into the suspected theft of confidential documents from the watchdog, the High Court heard yesterday.
Counsel for Durham Constabulary and the PSNI claimed redactions to search warrant applications had been necessary and kept to a minimum.
But lawyers representing two journalists arrested in the probe argued that critical material had been blanked out, with no evidence that it had been in the public interest to do so.
Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey were involved in making a film about the killing of six Catholic men at Loughinisland, Co Down, in June 1994. UVF gunmen opened fire in a pub in the village as victims watched a World Cup football match.
In August last year Mr Birney and Mr McCaffrey were detained, questioned and released as part of raids on their homes and an office in Belfast by detectives from Durham Constabulary.
The journalists and Fine Point Films, the company behind Loughinisland documentary No Stone Unturned, are challenging the validity of the search warrants obtained from a County Court Judge in their absence.
With the case set for hearing later this year, legal wrangling is continuing over the level of redaction to documents setting out reasons for seeking the warrants.
Peter Coll QC, for the police forces, contended the editing had been kept to an “irreducible minimum” in three main areas, with a gist of the information provided. The sections include a reference to the Police Ombudsman
IT system showing the frequency of any contact between its staff, journalists and the production team that made No Stone Unturned, the court heard.
Mr Coll suggested a closed hearing to assess the material, having the judges examine it in private, or seeking a Public Interest Immunity Certificate, which
would prohibit any disclosure. He claimed that providing the information now would undermine the effectiveness of any future interviews carried out during the probe continuing at the same time as the legal challenge.
“The police are trying, as far as possible, to provide as much information as they safely can in relation to the material put before (the County Court judge) when he was making his decision on the search warrant applications, alongside maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of an ongoing investigation into serious (alleged) criminality relating to the provision of secret information by a public authority or from within a public authority in this jurisdiction,” he added.
“The tensions and difficulties are acute. This is not just a straightforward situation where there’s a judicial review brought and everybody puts all their cards on the table.”
However, counsel representing the two journalists insisted all details on the central issue of how police justified their requests for the search warrants had been blanked out.
Barry Macdonald QC, for Mr Birney, told the court: “This applicant is not interested in details about the Police Ombudsman’s IT system, but he’s very interested in the kind of details police were putting before the judge relating to any contact he and other journalists had with Police Ombudsman staff.”
Stressing that no reasons were given for the decision to grant the warrants, he added: “We have absolutely no idea what influenced the judge.”
Gavin Millar QC, for Mr McCaffrey, backed assertions that no evidence had been produced to demonstrate that disclosure would be against the public interest.
Referring to the gist provided on contact between journalists and ombudsman staff, he pointed out: “It’s certainly not said to be clandestine or improper.”
Following submissions, Lord Justice Treacy, sitting with Mrs Justice Keegan, confirmed that he would examine the material before ruling on the redactions at a later date.