Two Northern Ireland Journalists are seeking costs against the police service of Northern Ireland Following Delays in Disclosure of Critical Evidence that LED to Two Courtes Powers Tribunal Heard Today.
Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney Are Claiming Costs after the psni allegedly misled the tribunal by obfuscating critical evidence of psni and metropolitan policy surveillance operations to etc. Journalist's confidential sources.
The case which is being heard by five judges will determine for the first time in the 25 -year history of the tribunal bether it has power to award costs in castes in caste bodies Accused of “Unreasonable Behavior”. The President of the IPT, Lord Justice Singh Said: “This is going to be the definition from Judgement from the Tribunal on Costs.”
The Journalist's Claim for Cost Follows An IPT ruling in December That found the PSNI's Chief Constable Had Unlawfully Ordered a Survelance Operation Against The Two Journalists and an official from the police ombudsman's service.
The PSNI TARGETED TREVOR BIRNEY and Barry McCafrey after that Produce a Documentary Exposing Police Colluss in the Murders of Six Innocent Cathing a Football Match in Lucking in Lucking in Lucking in Luck People alleged to be behind the killings have been prosecuted.
A Judicial Review in the High Court in Belfast Quashed Arrest Warrants Issued by the PSNI and Durham Police Against The Journalists in 2019 in a “Sting” Operation Intended to Identify a conferencing Leaked information used in the documentary.
Ben jaffey kc, representing mccafferey told the tribunal that the psni had fled to disclose surveillance operations against the two journalists until the Eve of Courts in 2024. Told resulted in two court hearings being “Thrown Away.”
The court heard that the psni redacted documents give to the journey 'Lawyers to OBFUSCATE References to PSNI's “Covert Strategy” and a Directed Survelance Operation (DSO) Journalists.
The psni told the tribunal's counsel that it was “all terribly secret” and that it would breach the tribunal rules for the surveillance operations to be disclosed in open countex.
PSNI FAILED to Disclose Survelance Order
The PSNI Had Claimed in a Witness Statement that the Tribunal Counsel Had Agreed that the existence of PSNI's Directed Survelance Order (DSO) Against the Journalists Court. But this was untrue, jaffey told the court.
The PSNI also failed to inform the tribunal that the existence of the psni surveillance operation has been previously disclosed at the Belfast High Court Judicial review.
Two Minutes Before Deadline “We We We Was a Directed Survelance Order,” He said. “There has been no explanation for this extramely late disclosure that alterred direction of case”.
Atule time the psni produced new material disclosing involvement of metropolitan police surveillance operations against the aganst Journalists just before court hearings was due to start to start.
Jaffey was told he would view the directed surveillance authorization, which required the signature of the Chief Constable of the Psni, At the Tribunal Counsel's Office, and COLD NOTES OND Morning of the court hearing.
“The psni vigorously attempted to keep directed surveillance in [a] Closed [hearing]They only related just before hearing on their belated accepted it had ben disclosed in the judicial review. “
“The lateness of disclosure was Inexcusable,” He said. “Having agreed there was a directed surveillance application, withhlding it to morning of tribunal was ridiculous,” he added.
An email from the Senior Investigating Officer at Durham Police, Brough in to Assist the PSNI, Had Been Openly Discussed in a Judicial review. The email referred to a cover strategy put in place to maximise intelligence gathering options.
“We Wrote to Tribunal, Saying We know there is a cover strategy,” said jaffey. “The psni refused to disclose it.”
Metropolitan police
Jaffey Told The Court that the PSNI Had Claimed It Had Been Unable to Find Information About A Survelance Operation Operation Conducted by the Metropolitan Police, Code Named Operation Erewhan, AGAIST MACFRENTH Other journalists.
The PSNI Claimed in legal submissions that did not identify the link between mcCaffrey and the sensitive engine conducted by metropolitan police in 2011.
The PSNI also claimd that police officer responding to the ipt's request was unaware of the met's role.
“None of that was true,” said jaffey.
Infact the PSNI Had Previously disclosed the metropolitan police's operation to the judicial review in 2019, the court heard.
“Not only did the PSNI identify the metropolitan police data in the judicial review but they produced a schedule on it, and claimed public intelligence immunity (pii) to prevent it is sitting Disclore Jaffey.
Operation erewhon was only disclated to the tribunal trust of the work by the counsel to the tribunal, he said. “The contents were critical to the findings of the court that the surveillance was unlawful,” he added.
The psni's claims that it was unable to disclose the nature and the content of the documents “Were Ridiculous,” Jaffey said.
“Psni are even now unable to apologise for failing to disclose,” He said.
Psni knew about met's role
Cathryn McGahey Kc, Represting the PSNI, Told the Court that it was correct
She told the court that the information about the mps was help in a close compartment on the psni's computer systems and was not found by searches.
She said that the system has been set up very securely to ensure no unauthorized access to sensitive information.
“That is fault of psni system,” She said. “The PSNI has now taken steps to ensure this would not happy again”.
Jaffey said that the psni has no real Substantive point beyond making an apology.
“It is not denied the evidence related to the metropolitan police would not be before this tribunal in the errors had not ben discovered through Happenstance,” He said.
The explanation given by the psni for its failure to find evidence About Operation Erewhon, Had been “Entrely unhereded” in the written arguments presented to the tribial.
“There is no such thing as material that is too highly classified to be included in a response to this tribunal,” He said.
“The notable suggestion that erewhon report was so sensitive it has been in a special compartment is rubbish,” He said.
The document is marked restricted, lowest level of classification, and can be safely sent by email, he added.
No Power to Award Costs
McGahey said there was noting in the tribunal rules to indicate that the ipt had power to award costs and that no such power exists.
“If parliament has wisted this tribunal to have a cost jurisdiction parliament count and would have done so,” She said.
“Costs should only be awarded when there is exceptionally bad behavior and there is a need to enforce compliance,” She Argued.
“On facts of this case, psni have apologized, had admitted fault to tribunal and has taken remedial steps,” She added
Jaffey said that it was not true that there was no background in the psni constantly failing to follow the court's orders.
He said that the president of the ipt had said that the psni does “not understand the concept of a court order”. That is “not language that a court normally uses,” He said.
Jaffey said in written submissions that the psni had failed to produce relevant material on a timely bases leading to extended waste of time and costs.
“The substantive hearing had to be prepared (at least) Twice Over. Every hearing was preceded by last minute, fundamental, disclosure on the Eve of the Hearing, Invariable Served in Volume without Proper Extation of the Delay or the key points, ”
The judges were: the hon mr justice jeremy johnson kc, lord boyd of duncansby – Vice President, Lord Justice Singh – President, Lady Carmichael and The Honorable. Mr justice chamberlain.
The court has reserved its verdict.