clrcrmck
MI5 made multiple applications for phone data to identify BBC journalist’s sources
MI5 discloses it made and authorised unlawful ‘sequential applications’ for Vincent Kearney’s phone data during his time at the BBC, but will neither confirm nor deny whether it undertook further ‘lawful’ surveillance of BBC journalists
The Security Service, MI5, made “multiple” unlawful applications for phone data in an attempt to identify the confidential sources of a former BBC journalist, a London court has heard.
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal heard that MI5 unlawfully sought the phone records of reporter Vincent Kearney on “at least” four occasions between 2006 and 2009 when he worked for the BBC in Northern Ireland.
Jude Bunting KC, representing the BBC and Kearney, told the tribunal that MI5 should disclose whether it had carried out further surveillance against Kearney and other BBC journalists for what it regards as lawful reasons.
“We don’t know whether MI5 made other applications [for communications data] that were lawful against Mr Kearney,” he said. “We don’t know whether MI5 made applications for the phone data of other BBC employees.”
The BBC and Kearney are bringing a legal challenge against the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), Durham Constabulary, the Metropolitan Police Service and the UK government over allegations that police and MI5 unlawfully spied on the phones of BBC journalists working in Northern Ireland.
MI5 argues that it needs to uphold the longstanding principle that it can neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it carried out other surveillance operations against Kearney or a list of 16 other BBC journalists, if the surveillance was carried out lawfully.
The court heard that MI5 had disclosed in September that it had unlawfully obtained the communications data from Kearney’s phone in 2006 and 2009 as part of investigations into people suspected of disclosing information relating to national security to Kearney.
MI5 made a further disclosure in October that it had made unauthorised “sequential applications” for Kearney’s phone data intended to identify the journalist’s confidential journalistic sources.
One application aimed to identify Kearney’s “contacts and activities and any behaviour that may be a threat to national security”.
The document disclosed by MI5 revealed “significant detail” and provided “significant information” about how the application process from communications data worked.
Bunting told the court: “Not only do we know MI5 targeted Mr Kearney, but we now know how. We can see that there was an established procedure for MI5 to obtain communications data.”
He said the disclosure from MI5 referred to operational data, procedures and techniques, and showed that MI5 holds telephone billing data.
It was not just Kearney’s data that was obtained, but other people’s phone data was “scooped up” at the same time, said Bunting.
“This is a significant departure from NCND, both in terms of who is being targeted and operational data,” he said.
Kearney, currently Northern Ireland editor at RTÉ, did not know how many applications were made, what the aim of the applications was, when they were made, what time period they covered, what data MI5 obtained and what data MI5 has retained about Kearney, the court heard.
MI5 disclosures reveal operation against BBC journalist
- MI5 disclosed a “gisted” summary that reveals it had made multiple applications to access Kearney’s communications data in 2006.
- The applications were justified on “national security grounds” to investigate “unauthorised disclosures of information”.
- One application aimed to identify Kearney’s contacts, activities and any behaviour that might be a threat to national security.
- MI5 retained “billing spreadsheets” which showed Kearney’s billing data, including the date, day, time, number called, and category of each call.
- A request was also made to “open a file” in relation to Kearney as an “individual connected to sensitive information.” It is not clear if the request was approved.
MI5 has also refused to confirm or deny whether it made further applications for Kearney’s data, which it considered lawful, or whether it had made applications for data belonging to another 16 BBC employees.
“NCND is not supposed to be a flag we all salute, nor is it supposed to be a general exemption from disclosure. It’s meant to preserve national security,” Bunting told the court.
He said NCND relies on the consistency of its application, but MI5 had waived NCND in significant ways in the Kearney case.
“MI5 states already that it targeted Mr Kearney by obtaining his communications data. That is a departure from NCND,” he added. “We know considerable detail now about MI5 operations in respect of how it applies for and obtains communications data. We know how it obtains information about journalists’ communications.”
NCND not always accepted
“People treat NCND from MI5 with particular deference and we respect that,” Bunting told the court. “But this tribunal has not always accepted the explanation a state body has given.”
In the case of Apple, the tribunal disagreed with the government’s arguments that the case should be held in a closed court.
“There are clear logical gaps and inconsistencies in the approach that MI5 have taken to NCND,” he said.
Bunting said the concessions made by MI5 do not allow lawyers to assess how Kearney and the BBC’s rights under article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights – which allows journalists to protect the identity of confidential sources – are affected.
“The fact that MI5 provided information with respect to targeting that is illegal does not mean there is no reason to provide information about targeting that was legal,” he said.
NCND is a long-standing principle
Richard O’Brien KC, acting for MI5 and other government departments, said it was very common for little to be said about the reasons for not disclosing information in open court because that could damage national security.
He said MI5 had conceded that it obtained phone data in 2006 and 2009 in relation to disclosures made to Kearney that could have damaged national security.
“It has been the policy of successive governments to neither confirm nor deny whether an intelligence service carried out a particular operation against individuals or groups, or what information was obtained,” said O’Brien.
He said that although it is not a blanket rule, every departure from NCND must be considered with care because its effectiveness is based on its consistent application.
“The issue of national security also applies to NCND because if you disclose information in one case, there could be inferences about what is disclosed in another case,” he said.
O’Brien defended MI5’s late disclosure to the BBC of material that revealed it had interfered with Kearney’s personal data on at least two occasions.
The court heard that MI5 had to carry out searches not just on Kearney, but on 16 individual journalists or BBC employees whose names were provided by the BBC.
“Substantial searches require considerable work even if they don’t reveal anything of import,” he said.
Bunting said it should make no difference to national security whether MI5 disclosed information in relation to lawful surveillance of Kearney, given that MI5 had disclosed details of unlawful surveillance.
“My submission was that there was no quantitative difference to the impact on national security with respect to disclosures that were lawful and disclosures that were unlawful. That question has not been answered,” he added.
He said in written submissions that Kearney and the BBC were unable to take steps to protect their personal and journalistic rights.
“They are left in the situation where they, their friends and families, and their journalist sources know that there were repeated unlawful interferences ... but they do not know who by, when, for how long or why.”
The case is due to be heard next year.
Read more about police surveillance of journalists in Northern Ireland
- The Police Service of Northern Ireland has commissioned a senior lawyer to report back on whether there was any misconduct by police officers following the McCullough Review into the surveillance of journalists, lawyers and NGOs.
- A review by Angus McCullough KC reveals that Northern Ireland police failed to comply with the law but that there was no ‘widespread and systemic’ surveillance of journalists, lawyers and NGOs.
- Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) apologises for failing to destroy data that was unlawfully seized from journalists, despite a court agreement, and to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal for failing to disclose key information to the court.
- Investigatory Powers Tribunal hears that MI5 has conceded that it unlawfully monitored the phone data of former BBC Spotlight reporter Vincent Kearney.
- The PSNI failed to inform the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office about surveillance operations against journalists during annual inspections.
- McCullough Review delayed: Angus McCullough KC is to present findings of an independent review of police spying on phone data of lawyers, journalists and NGOs in Northern Ireland in October.
- Investigatory Powers Tribunal judges call for the home secretary to step in after finding they have no powers to award costs against government bodies that fail to disclose evidence.
- Investigative reporter Dónal MacIntyre asks the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to look into allegations that he was placed under directed surveillance and had his social media posts monitored by Northern Ireland police.
- Journalists seek legal costs after PSNI’s ‘ridiculous’ withholding of evidence in spying operation delayed court hearings.
- The Metropolitan Police monitored the phones of 16 BBC journalists on behalf of police in Northern Ireland, a cross-party group of MPs hears.
- More than 40 journalists and lawyers submit evidence to PSNI surveillance inquiry.
- Conservative MP adds to calls for public inquiry over PSNI police spying.
- Tribunal criticises PSNI and Met Police for spying operation to identify journalists’ sources.
- Detective wrongly claimed journalist’s solicitor attempted to buy gun, surveillance tribunal hears.
- Ex-PSNI officer ‘deeply angered’ by comments made by a former detective at a tribunal investigating allegations of unlawful surveillance against journalists.
- Detective reported journalist’s lawyers to regulator in ‘unlawful’ PSNI surveillance case.
- Lawyers and journalists seeking ‘payback’ over police phone surveillance, claims former detective. We need a judge-led inquiry into police spying on journalists and lawyers, says Barry McCaffrey.
- Former assistant chief constable Alan McQuillan claims the PSNI used a dedicated laptop to access the phone communications data of hundreds of lawyers and journalists.
- Northern Ireland police used covert powers to monitor over 300 journalists.
- Police chief commissions ‘independent review’ of surveillance against journalists and lawyers.
- Police accessed phone records of ‘trouble-making journalists’.
- BBC instructs lawyers over allegations of police surveillance of journalist.
- The Northern Ireland Policing Board asks PSNI to produce a public report on its use of covert surveillance powers against journalists and lawyers after it gave ‘utterly vague’ answers.
- PSNI chief constable Jon Boutcher agrees to provide a report on police surveillance of journalists and lawyers to Northern Ireland’s policing watchdog, but denies industrial use of surveillance powers.
- Report reveals Northern Ireland police put up to 18 journalists and lawyers under surveillance.
- Three police forces took part in surveillance operations between 2011 and 2018 to identify sources that leaked information to journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal hears.
- Amnesty International and the Committee on the Administration of Justice have asked Northern Ireland’s policing watchdog to open an inquiry into the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s use of surveillance powers against journalists.
- Britain’s most secret court is to hear claims that UK authorities unlawfully targeted two journalists in a ‘covert surveillance’ operation after they exposed the failure of police in Northern Ireland to investigate paramilitary killings.
- PSNI is unable to delete terabytes of unlawfully seized data taken from journalists who exposed police failings in the investigation of the Loughinisland sectarian murders.
- The Investigatory Powers Tribunal agrees to investigate complaints by Northern Ireland investigative journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey that they were unlawfully placed under surveillance.
Read more on Regulatory compliance and standard requirements
-
PSNI appoints legal counsel to report on police conduct after McCullough surveillance review
-
McCullough Review finds PSNI failures but no ‘systemic’ surveillance of journalists
-
PSNI chief sorry over failure to delete data unlawfully seized from journalists
-
MI5 unlawfully monitored the phone of BBC journalist Vincent Kearney
