‘Shock and concern’ has been voiced after it emerged the PSNI has included journalists and members of the media alongside those linked to criminal and paramilitary activity on a list of ‘associations’ staff members must declare.
Seamus Dooley from the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has criticised the requirement for PSNI officers and civilian staff to tell their bosses if they have any association with journalists as “absurd and unacceptable”, while SDLP Stormont opposition leader Matthew O’Toole said police need to be clear “in their commitment to press freedom”.
Details of the requirement are contained in a PSNI “service instruction” document headed “declarable associations”.
All police employees are told that that they must report to their line manager and the PSNI’s Service Verting Unit if they know or suspect any individuals that have a criminal conviction.
The are also expected to make a report if a person they know is charged or reported for a criminal offence, subject to criminal investigation or have previous or current links to criminal or paramilitary activity.
Journalists and members of the media are also included on the list alongside those dismissed or “required to resign” from the PSNI, or other law enforcement agency, for gross misconduct.
Mr Dooley was scathing of the PSNI’s inclusion of media professionals.
“I would expect there would be a requirement on a police officer to declare where there might be a conflict of interest, or a perceived conflict of interest,” he said.
“But for a blanket declaration on an association with journalists is absurd and unacceptable.”
The NUJ official said it would be “very surprising if police did not have association with journalists in their normal working life, social life, their education”.
“But to classify them in the same category as people who are outside the law is concerning,” he said.
“To me….it reveals a mindset in relation to the role of journalists and speaks to a prejudice about the function of journalists in society.”
SDLP Stormont opposition leader Matthew O’Toole said it is “not acceptable” for journalists to be on the list.
“It is extremely concerning, if not shocking, to see journalists listed alongside convicted criminals and people with paramilitary associations as links to be reported to PSNI line managers,” he said.
“Given existing concerns about the arrest of journalists, the PSNI needs to be absolutely clear in its commitment to press freedom.
“It is of course legitimate for the police to warn its officers about the need to protect information and even educate its officers about proper practice in relation to the media, but it is not acceptable for the PSNI to be listing journalists alongside convicted criminals.”
If a PSNI staff member has a “declarable association” they are told to inform their line manager and the PSNI’s Service Vetting Unit, which is part of the Professional Standards Department (PSD).
The service instruction reveals that if a police officer or staff member has information or suspects that a colleague has not “declared a relevant association this should be reported to the Anti-Corruption Intelligence Unit (ACU)”.
Also part of the Professional Standards Department, it was formed around 2007 and is attached to the PSNI’s C3 department, which was formerly known as ‘Special Branch’.
The ACU has been linked to the surveillance of former PSNI officers, journalists and members of the legal profession.
Disturbing details of PSNI surveillance of journalists has recently come to light through the London based Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which is examining allegations that two investigative journalists, Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney were subjected to unlawful surveillance.
Earlier this year it emerged that the PSNI made 823 applications for communications data relating to journalists and lawyers over a 13-year period from 2011-2024.
The McCullough Review has since been set up to examine the extent of PSNI spy operations.
A spokeswoman for the PSNI said the force has “adopted he principles contained in the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice on Counter Corruption regarding notifiable association”.
The spokeswoman added that a previous service instruction also included “a specified list of individuals and those with professions like journalists and private investigators”.
“The Service Instruction is intended to protect the integrity of the organisation and prevent operations and intelligence from being compromised. Inappropriately disclosing sensitive police information is also criminal offence, contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018,” she added.
“It is also intended to protect police officers and staff from being accused of acting corruptly by providing a mechanism to be open and transparent and at the same time provide reassurance to the organisation.”
The spokeswoman said “it should be noted that associations are viewed to be declarable but not necessarily inappropriate, therefore it is not ‘inappropriate’ to be friends and associate with journalists”.
“The requirement to disclose associations is not new and is in line with national best practice as per the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice on Counter Corruption,” she added.
