Sir, – Recent history would suggest that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission is obsessed with its internal security. To date it has failed to justify that obsession and in doing so has created the impression that it operates under a culture of paranoia. In its mission statement, Gsoc states that its key values include “openness and transparency – communication and explanation of our actions”. – Yours, etc,
JANET FOX,
Kilmacud,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – I am somewhat nonplussed by the furore created in the press by the “revelation” that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission has accessed historic, retained telephone data in respect of that most tender and precious of species, the journalist. I should say up front that I am a former employee of Gsoc’s and I have a particular – perhaps partisan – understanding of its role, responsibilities and its relationship to the gravitational pull of the larger bodies around which it orbits. I suspect, too, that there has been some inadvertent muddling and confusion of two aspects of the lawful ability of certain agencies to access telephone-related data. One is the ability to access historic, retained records of calls made and received. The second is the technical ability to make live interceptions and recordings of telephone calls. With regard to the current journalistic angst, it is the former that is at issue.
First, let me say that I am fully in agreement with the suggestion of some correspondents that such access should ideally be mediated through an application to the courts, in much the same way as search warrants are.
But that is not what the legislation provides, and Gsoc is obliged to work with and within the constraints of its governing and related statutes. As it is, the allocation of police powers to the organisation is through a series of convoluted sections in the Garda Síochána Act 2005 that make it well nigh impossible for GSOC to act with any confidence in its own authority. I defy anybody to read section 98 and come to a clear explanation as to the differentiation of powers as between the members of the commission and its designated officers.
That said, and with regard to retained telephone data, Gsoc operates a system of internal safeguards that mimic the process of an application to the courts to ensure that there is no trawling for information and no fishing expeditions. To bring focus and proportionality the time-period targeted is as specific and as short as possible. This aims to minimise intrusion and, to the greatest extent possible, protect the privacy of all involved parties. It is a responsibility that Gsoc and its officers take very seriously as they realise that, given the role and position of the organisation, its actions must be above and beyond reproach.
With that in mind, I would suggest that any journalist aggrieved by Gsoc’s actions should make a complaint under section 109 of the 2005 Act and seek a review of those actions by a High Court judge. I would be surprised if such a review found Gsoc to have acted excessively but in the event that it did, then the public, the Garda Síochána (and the journalists) have a right to know and to ensure that such actions are corrected. This would also serve to assist Gsoc in testing its processes and providing needed external quality control.
Second, I noticed that the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors has jumped on the bandwagon. Never a body to miss an opportunity to pummel Gsoc publicly, its officers have sought to instruct Gsoc on investigative procedure and processes. Gsoc’s investigators have received extensive and accredited training in investigative processes and procedures. These are fully compliant with the European Convention of Human Rights.
Finally, I am curious to know how media outlets would expect Gsoc to effectively investigate an allegation of criminality with its powers even further curtailed (as has been suggested). If a Garda member is alleged to have leaked information, such that an offence may be disclosed, then Gsoc not only can, but must, use the full extent of its powers, proportionately deployed, to seek the truth.
There is something of a double-standard at play here; I did not see much concern in the media at the breach of the privacy of residents in Áras Attracta caused by the recordings made in their residence without their knowledge. And given the abuses exposed, I accept that there were countervailing rights at play, with the need to expose the abuses potentially outweighing the breach of privacy.
Perhaps I am being somewhat cynical but I have a suspicion that the heat being generated about Gsoc’s lawful actions has as much to do with the possibility that valuable Garda sources may be silenced as it has with concerns for freedom of the press. – Yours, etc,
RAY LEONARD,
Blessington,
Co Wicklow.