Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE NATIONAL UNION of Journalists (NUJ) has expressed concern over the accessing of journalists’ mobile phone records during a criminal inquiry into a third party.
The Irish Times reported today that Garda watchdog Gsoc studied the records of two journalists as part of an investigation into the leaking of information to the media.
The paper said the oversight body launched the inquiry after a friend of deceased model Katy French lodged a complaint about coverage of her death.
NUJ secretary Séamus Dooley told RTÉ’s Morning Ireland that the union is seeking to meet Gsoc over the issue.
“What is unusual about this power is that the journalist is not told in advance and that is a major concern that we would have,” he said.
There is a veil of secrecy about this. I’ve been contacted by a number of journalists who have raised concerns about this.
Gsoc have not made any comment. I will be looking for a meeting with [them].
Granted new powers
Dooley added that the case could lead to people thinking twice about talking to journalists.
He said “the accessing of the data of journalists is something which should only happen in extreme circumstances” and that Gsoc should have to prove their case.
“The notion that, without any access to a court or justifying it, Gsoc can go in secretly without the knowledge of the journalist concerned and get this information is really worrying,” he added.
The watchdog was granted powers last year to access journalists’ record, if required, during serious investigations.
Gsoc contacted at least three gardaí last year to inform them that a study of phone records had shown they were in contact with the reporters, according to The Irish Times.
French, a 24-year-old model, passed away in 2007 after collapsing at a friend’s house four days earlier.
A postmortem examination found traces of cocaine in her body.
Gsoc said it had no comment to make.
Additional reporting by Daragh Brophy
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
A precedence has been set with this. Well meaning as it is. Will not other survivors of state ineffectiveness want something similar.
@AnthonyK: At a risk of sounding controversial, I think this should have been dealt with under some form of compensation or redress rather than some blanket thing.
That it doesn’t preclude future settlements is an odd thing.
However, I’m more onboard with the Gov actually doing something rather than nothing for those people it’s completely failed.
maybe hold tony hoolahan to account? no, no, that would be too much to expect of this snide government.
@Niall English: What specifically should he be held to account for?
Are they going to do this for all individuals who have been failed by the state (and how is that defined)? There’s plenty of people who have suffered, including Stardust victims, people who can’t get or afford homes.
The amount of misinformation out there around what happened with cervical check is mind-blowing. The way some people talk you’d swear that the testing service actually gave people cancer.
@Jason Memail: Quite the opposite, it didn’t tell them that they had cancer so they didn’t receive the treatment they needed, in a nutshell
@Brian D’Arcy: That’s absolutely false, and part of the misinformation that’s common on this subject. 1) These women received tests from cervical check which told them that cancer cells were not present. 2) These women subsequently developed cancer, and a review of their original tests was carried out. 3) The reviews showed that the earlier tests missed what may have been cancerous cells, with these reviews aided by the fact that the reviewers knew what they were looking for, since the patients had developed cancer.
@Jason Memail: 4) The decision was made, and this is the real crux of the issue, not to go back and tell those women that the earlier tests missed the potentially cancerous cells, mainly because what good would it do? They now had cancer and knowing an earlier test missed it wouldn’t change that. 5) Overall, the suggestion that cervical check didn’t tell these people they had cancer is demonstrably false, because the only reason the reviews were carried out on the initial tests is because they had cancer, which they knew about. 6) Going back and checking original tests when something like this happens is standard practice, and the right thing to do in order to improve future testing, but
@Jason Memail: 7) you can argue whether or not it was the right decision not to inform people about what the earlier tests missed, but it would not and could not have changed the fact that they now, sadly, had cancer, and 8) Knowing that an earlier test missed something could not have allowed them to start treatment earlier, because it’s in the oast. 9) If you want to know the specifics of it, I’d suggest checking out care2much on Twitter, who has written some incredibly detailed threads on the subject.
While this is welcome and like one commentor said that it should have been done with compensation.
As a survivor of the industrial state/religious run institutions we never got compensation we were give an “Award” as if we won something, we cannot get enhanced medical cards that the survivors from the mother and baby home were afforded, we cannot get a contributary pension even though we had to work in these institutions, we now get another slap in the face by being excluded from theses tax benefits. I live in a council house and am grateful for that, I live with my ill husband and disabled totally dependant 23 year old son was told that I can purchase the house for a minimum of between 60 and 80 thousand euro, cannot get a mortgage as my husband is 70 as the cut off is 69 and we’ve have no where to go to help buy the house so our disabled son would have a roof over his head if anything happened to us.
have your say