MI5 and PSNI Fined £20,000 for Unlawfully Obtaining Journalist's Data

Both the PSNI and the Metropolitan Police admitted unlawful involvement in surveillance operations during the proceedings. The tribunal found "no reason to distinguish between the conduct" of the PSNI and MI5, establishing shared responsibility for the breaches.

Mr. Kearney served as BBC Northern Ireland’s Home Affairs Correspondent from 2006 to 2019. Throughout this period, intelligence and police agencies repeatedly accessed his data.

Jude Bunting KC confirmed seven separate police or MI5 operations unlawfully obtained the journalist's confidential communications data between 2006 and 2018. These operations allowed agencies to view contact numbers, call times, and subscriber details, though communication content remained inaccessible.

The authorisations used were deemed disproportionate. They violated laws designed to protect privacy and confidential journalistic sources.

MI5's initial bids for Mr. Kearney’s data in 2006 reportedly failed to identify him as a journalist. They also omitted that the data sought would reveal his sources.

PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher offered a "sincere apology" to Mr. Kearney. He acknowledged the severe breach of trust caused by these actions.

Since the unlawful surveillance operations against Mr. Kearney, the PSNI and MI5 have mandated stricter oversight. They introduced more rigorous authorization processes for communications data requests.

These new measures include enhanced judicial oversight, mandatory review by senior officers, and the introduction of more detailed reporting requirements. The BBC stated that the issues raised were a matter of "grave concern," emphasizing that "what happened in this instance was wrong and must never be repeated."

A report by Angus McCullough KC highlighted significant concerns about the potential threat to press freedom. It recommended the PSNI refrain from attempting to identify journalists' sources.

This report identified over 20 attempts by the PSNI to identify journalists’ sources. However, it concluded the surveillance was not "widespread or systemic."

The tribunal found the interferences numerous and occurring over several years. This underscores a pattern of unlawful activity rather than isolated incidents.

The PSNI ran four operations specifically targeting Kearney. They created a detailed profile on him, which included car registrations and the names of his wife and mother-in-law.

Mr. Kearney suspects this profile was created specifically for surveillance purposes. This raises further questions about the extent and intent of the monitoring.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal noted that the authorisations failed to explain why the data could not be obtained by other means. They also failed to justify why public interest necessitated interfering with journalistic sources.

Details disclosed in the case of documentary makers Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney also suggested public bodies, including police forces, spied on Mr. Kearney. This revealed a broader historical context of surveillance.

This history of surveillance against journalists highlights a persistent tension between national security interests and press freedom. It is a battle fought for decades across various landscapes.

The economic pressure on news organizations, coupled with evolving digital landscapes, makes the protection of sources more critical than ever. The cost of such breaches extends beyond financial penalties to public trust.

The ruling sets a precedent, forcing stakeholders across law enforcement and intelligence agencies to re-evaluate their protocols. They must ensure future operations strictly adhere to legal and ethical boundaries, safeguarding the future of investigative journalism.