Angus McCullough’s review: A reckoning for the PSNI – and for press freedom

McCullough’s is not an establishment cipher

McCullough himself is not an establishment cipher. A senior barrister with a background as a special advocate, he has long experience of cases involving sensitive material and national security issues.

He has been unusually accessible to the press and to witnesses. That transparency has encouraged many who might otherwise have been reticent to come forward. For those of us whose lives and work fall within the review’s terms of reference, his willingness to listen has been both encouraging and, frankly, unprecedented.

Why does this matter? The allegations are not abstract. They follow a string of high-profile findings and legal challenges, which show that the policing of journalistic sources and private communications has sometimes strayed across the line between legitimate intelligence gathering and unlawful intrusion.

Recent tribunal judgments – and reporting on covert operations authorised in 2018 – have already criticised earlier PSNI authorisations and raised serious questions about directed surveillance and the lawfulness of police tactics. The McCullough Review is intended to examine whether such practices persisted, how they were authorised, and whether safeguards failed.

PSNI chief pledged to address past failures

There is also an institutional backdrop that must not be ignored. The PSNI has a new leadership dynamic: chief constable Jon Boutcher, appointed in late 2023, has publicly pledged to address past failings and to accept independent scrutiny.

The review’s existence and the chief constable’s stated willingness to draw a line under unlawful practices are, on paper, a real test of institutional reform. How far words will be matched by systemic change is the question McCullough will be expected to answer.

My own experience – and why I am watching this report closely – is straightforward. In March, a whistleblower contacted the Belfast Telegraph alleging that a number of journalists, myself included, had been the subject of unlawful PSNI surveillance. At the time, I was investigating the tragic and still-mysterious death of 14-year-old Noah Donohoe in north Belfast in 2020.

PSNI monitored social media

It was reported by the paper that the PSNI monitored my social media accounts while I was preparing confidential material for the coroner’s inquest; the force denied involvement in a separate incident in which my car was broken into at Heathrow in November 2024 and confidential papers were rifled through, though valuables were left behind.

I raised both the surveillance and the break-in with the reviewer after his evidence deadline closed, and he nonetheless agreed to note the matters raised by me and the whistleblower.

I cannot claim that the report will solve the car incident or answer the deeper questions of whether there was any unlawful or unethical surveillance of me, but I can say that the review’s access to police files and personnel gives it the capacity to answer broader questions about who authorised what, and whether covert lines of inquiry were properly recorded and supervised.

Questions McCullough must answer

There are several lines the review must pursue if it is to be judged robust. First, it must trace authorisations: who signed off directed surveillance and on what basis, and were those authorisations lawful and proportionate?

Second, it must reveal whether surveillance tools and techniques – including data mining tools and social media monitoring – were used within legal and policy parameters.

Investigations by Computer Weekly suggest that tools exist that can sweep up vast troves of communications data; independent scrutiny needs to establish whether their use was subject to appropriate oversight.

Third, the review must address the culture that allows so-called “off-the-books” activity to flourish if, in fact, it has. Evidence of rogue or informal operations by officers or staff – persistently denied by the PSNI – will be a test of the reviewer’s access and nerve.

Pressure from multiple directions

There will be pressure on McCullough from several directions. The public – and those directly implicated – will demand meaningful remedies and safeguards.

Representative bodies such as the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and Amnesty International have already signalled how high the stakes are: unlawful surveillance of journalists damages not only individual rights but the public’s ability to hold power to account.

Conversely, the PSNI and its leadership will argue for the operational necessities of tackling crime and protecting sources.

The nub of McCullough’s task is to reconcile those competing imperatives and recommend structures that allow lawful policing without chilling civil liberties.

Will McCullough really bring change?

What should readers expect on Wednesday? A measure of candour, I hope – and practical recommendations. McCullough has the authority to access police files, current staff and former officers; he can map the legal and procedural gaps that allowed surveillance to overreach. There will, undoubtedly, be shocking details for those who have long suspected a pattern of intrusive practice.

But the ultimate test will be implementation. Will the PSNI, the Policing Board and oversight bodies translate findings into change – not least clearer rules about social media monitoring, better audit trails for surveillance authorisations, and stronger protections for journalists, lawyers and NGOs?

For those of us who have challenged the PSNI, who have asked awkward questions and sought to hold the force to account, the review is not an end in itself but a possible turning point.

Reviews often disappoint. Yet this one may break that pattern: a short timetable, an open reviewer and a force under new leadership create the conditions for something more than a report that gathers dust.

If Angus McCullough KC can show not only what went wrong, but how to fix it – and if the PSNI acts on those prescriptions – then Wednesday’s publication will mark the start of reform, not merely another inquiry into past failures.

If it does not, then we will be left with yet another paper promise and an emboldened status quo. Either way, the public, the press and the courts will now have the facts to judge.

Donal MacIntyre is an investigative journalist.