Jamie Bryson argues that the PSNI is launching a Supreme Court assault on press freedom as they seek to narrow protections for journalistic material.


PSNI Chief Constable George Hamilton has launched a full-frontal assault on press freedom as he seeks to restrict the protections for journalistic material under the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1989.

In my recent Judicial Review challenge the High Court ruled that in the event that the PSNI had corporate knowledge that a person may be in possession of journalistic material, then the enhanced protections apply- even if the police are not seeking journalistic material- and as such they would be precluded from procuring standard warrants under Article 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1989 (PACE).

This judgement meant that regardless of whether the alleged offence being investigated related to journalistic material or not, the PSNI would still have to go through the more rigorous procedure of applying to a County Court judge in order to obtain a search warrant. This judgement, the significance of which was denied by the PSNI at the time, broadened the scope of protection of journalistic material and set a significant precedent.

On Friday the PSNI Chief Constable lodged an appeal, claiming that the precedent set by the judgement raised a matter of public importance and as such his legal representatives submitted a question to the United Kingdom Supreme Court.

The Chief Constable’s application (below) if successful would mean that PSNI could seize journalistic material- which falls under ‘excluded and special procedure material’- under the pretence of investigating any offence and the only remedy for the subject of the seizure would be a ‘seize and sift’ procedure whereby PSNI would wade through all seized items, themselves assessing what is journalistic material and what isn't. 




This was confirmed by affidavit evidence provided by the PSNI during my High Court case; the officer claimed it wasn’t practical to have any independent assessment of seized material, claiming that it was for investigators to decide what may be covered by journalistic privilege.

The danger of this, especially for all those who may investigate police corruption, is obvious. The police could seize all the journalistic material, wade through it for intelligence purposes and then themselves - without any independent scrutiny - decide what they feel deserves journalistic protection, and what does not.

The PSNI attempt to narrow the protections for journalistic material comes only weeks after the Chief Constable lost another High Court challenged brought by two journalists. It was his second defeat in as many weeks after also losing the challenge I brought earlier in May.

I have alerted the National Union of Journalists to this application by the Chief Constable, which could affect journalists right across the United Kingdom given the Supreme Court decision will be binding.

There may be large sections of the NUJ that despise me, which causes little more than light amusement, but if they look past the person and take a quick look at what is at stake they may realise that the PSNI Chief Constable is launching a full frontal assault on the statutory legal protections for journalistic material.

This assault isn’t a minor little scuffle in a lower court - he is going to the United Kingdom Supreme Court.

The full text of the question the Chief Constable is seeking to be adjudicated upon by the UKSC is as follows:

Is it unlawful to seek a warrant pursuant to Article 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 in circumstances where a constable does not seek access to special procedure and/or excluded material but where there is a corporate knowledge of a realistic possibility that the materials on the premises may contain special procedure and/or excluded material given the facility for searching and sifting provided by sections 50 and 51 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and the statutory obligation to return excluded material under section 55 of the 2001 Act?

⏩  Keep up with UnionistVoice.com ➽ Follow Jamie Bryson on Twitter @JamieBrysonCPNI

PSNI Launch A Supreme Court Assault On Press Freedom

Jamie Bryson argues that the PSNI is launching a Supreme Court assault on press freedom as they seek to narrow protections for journalistic material.


PSNI Chief Constable George Hamilton has launched a full-frontal assault on press freedom as he seeks to restrict the protections for journalistic material under the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1989.

In my recent Judicial Review challenge the High Court ruled that in the event that the PSNI had corporate knowledge that a person may be in possession of journalistic material, then the enhanced protections apply- even if the police are not seeking journalistic material- and as such they would be precluded from procuring standard warrants under Article 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1989 (PACE).

This judgement meant that regardless of whether the alleged offence being investigated related to journalistic material or not, the PSNI would still have to go through the more rigorous procedure of applying to a County Court judge in order to obtain a search warrant. This judgement, the significance of which was denied by the PSNI at the time, broadened the scope of protection of journalistic material and set a significant precedent.

On Friday the PSNI Chief Constable lodged an appeal, claiming that the precedent set by the judgement raised a matter of public importance and as such his legal representatives submitted a question to the United Kingdom Supreme Court.

The Chief Constable’s application (below) if successful would mean that PSNI could seize journalistic material- which falls under ‘excluded and special procedure material’- under the pretence of investigating any offence and the only remedy for the subject of the seizure would be a ‘seize and sift’ procedure whereby PSNI would wade through all seized items, themselves assessing what is journalistic material and what isn't. 




This was confirmed by affidavit evidence provided by the PSNI during my High Court case; the officer claimed it wasn’t practical to have any independent assessment of seized material, claiming that it was for investigators to decide what may be covered by journalistic privilege.

The danger of this, especially for all those who may investigate police corruption, is obvious. The police could seize all the journalistic material, wade through it for intelligence purposes and then themselves - without any independent scrutiny - decide what they feel deserves journalistic protection, and what does not.

The PSNI attempt to narrow the protections for journalistic material comes only weeks after the Chief Constable lost another High Court challenged brought by two journalists. It was his second defeat in as many weeks after also losing the challenge I brought earlier in May.

I have alerted the National Union of Journalists to this application by the Chief Constable, which could affect journalists right across the United Kingdom given the Supreme Court decision will be binding.

There may be large sections of the NUJ that despise me, which causes little more than light amusement, but if they look past the person and take a quick look at what is at stake they may realise that the PSNI Chief Constable is launching a full frontal assault on the statutory legal protections for journalistic material.

This assault isn’t a minor little scuffle in a lower court - he is going to the United Kingdom Supreme Court.

The full text of the question the Chief Constable is seeking to be adjudicated upon by the UKSC is as follows:

Is it unlawful to seek a warrant pursuant to Article 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 in circumstances where a constable does not seek access to special procedure and/or excluded material but where there is a corporate knowledge of a realistic possibility that the materials on the premises may contain special procedure and/or excluded material given the facility for searching and sifting provided by sections 50 and 51 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and the statutory obligation to return excluded material under section 55 of the 2001 Act?

⏩  Keep up with UnionistVoice.com ➽ Follow Jamie Bryson on Twitter @JamieBrysonCPNI

5 comments:

  1. Good to see Jamie given a platform here. While the article was likely selected on the basis of its theme, it’s important no matter that we try to understand the genuine fears and concerns — and indeed aspirations — of those in our society and nation as Jamie Bryson. Jamie is a unionist and has previously told me, when approached on the matter, that he has no interest in determining how we can run an all-Ireland state for the betterment of all. Nevertheless, when the day arrives where we are doing just such a thing it’s important that such voices as his are both heard and considered.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sean,
    If he has no interest then why is his voice important?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sean - fair point but on reflection it might be mirrored by you having the same absolute lack of interest in determining how we manage a non- all Ireland arrangement for the betterment of all. Your comment might be more provocative than reconciliatory. There are often times when honest provocation serves better than faux reconciliation. I am not sure you calculated the PR coordinates correctly on this one!

    I welcome this piece by Jamie Bryson because, while his detractors will focus on his politics rather than the substance of his ideas, what we have unfolding in front of our eyes is a PSNI assault on freedom of inquiry. If Danny Morrison or Tommy Robinson were to point it out, freedom to think activists would still need to concur that it is a point in need of being made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great point AM;

      to what degree can we suffice our own desires and aspirations, in the service of the greatest good, limit our ideals voluntarily in the service of greatest safety, the greatest safety for the greatest number of citizens?

      Otherwise ... do we blindly and ignorantly pursue, nonchalantly or somewhat reluctantly assent to others pursuing ideals and ideology heedless of potential costs?

      These are the questions that thoughtful and responsible people must ponder ... ponder and answer.

      Delete
  4. Tony and Niall. My engagement with Jamie wasn’t to provoke him and I wholly accept both his politics and his right to hold them. He is an Ulster Protestant of unionist persuasion and that to me is fine — while I don’t agree with his views, I respect them. I understood his reply, given his unionism, which could also be construed as provocative if everything we don’t agree with is to be held in that light. It’s important to me, no matter, that we find a way of building a republic that can house our respective traditions in peace — because that, for me, is the future. That’s the only ‘coordinates’ that were calculated and not for the purposes of PR. It’s the principal reason I advocate for a federal Ulster within an Irish Republic, though not the only one.

    ReplyDelete