Tag Archives: GSOC

The Garda watchdog GSOC has been asked to investigate the single vehicle collision which happened at the junction with the Malahide Road at around 1.10am this morning.

The van came to the attention of officers prior to the crash so the case has been referred to the Garda Ombudsman Commission.

Man Dies And Woman And Boy Injured In Fairview Crash (Newstalk)

The late Dublin-born blogger and journalist with the Dublin Inquirer Dara Quigley

On Saturday, Conor Feehan, in the Herald, reported that the guard suspected of recording video footage of Dara Quigley being arrested and dragged into a Garda car while walking naked in Dublin city centre “will not face prosecution”.

Dara, who was battling mental health issues, took her own life within days of the video being shared on Facebook by a separate person.

An investigation by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) into the incident is ongoing.

Mr Feehan reported:

“The matter was referred to the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) and an investigation into the conduct of the garda began.

“It is believed the garda at the centre of the investigation was suspended at the time of the incident.

“A spokesperson for the GSOC said the investigation was still ongoing. However, the Herald has learned from other sources that the garda who is suspected of recording the footage is not to face criminal prosecution.

“The garda could, however, still face disciplinary action when the GSOC investigation is completed.

“It is understood that when the investigation was first launched, the possible criminal aspect of it was looked at first, and the decision was made by the Director of Public Prosecutions that there would be no criminal charge stemming from the incident.”

Garda who filmed tragic blogger Dara to avoid prosecution (Conor Feehan, The Herald)

Meanwhile…

Sam Tranum, of Dublin Inquirer – where Dara worked – has contacted An Garda Síochána, GSOC, the Department of Justice, the Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan, Fianna Fáil’s justice spokesperson TD Jim O’Callaghan and Sinn Féin’s justice spokesperson TD Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire to check this story’s veracity.

Mr Tranum has also contacted the Director of Public Prosecutions.

He is tweeting his responses, as he gets them, here.

Clockwise from top left: Supt Eugene McGovern; Garda Keith Harrison, Marissa Simms; Chief Supt Terry McGinn; Judge Peter Charleton

Today.

At the Disclosures Tribunal in Dublin Castle.

Judge Peter Charleton continued to examine matters pertaining to Donegal-based Garda Keith Harrison.

Garda Harrison claims his working life has been difficult since he raised concerns about a garda being involved in the distribution of drugs in Athlone in 2008, and subsequently arrested the same garda for drink-driving in 2009.

It is his contention that the gardai manipulated domestic incidents involving him and his partner Marissa Simms that resulted in a referral being made to Tusla in February 2014.

This has been rejected by both An Garda Siochana and Tusla.

The decision to make a referral in respect of Garda Harrison to Tusla was made during a meeting about a statement made by Ms Simms on October 6, 2013, following a row on September 28, 2013.

At this meeting, it was also decided that a Section 102 referral should be made to GSOC.

A Section 102 referral concerns matters that indicate “the conduct of a member of the Garda Síochána may have resulted in the death of, or serious harm to, a person”.

Serious harm, the tribunal heard, is defined as: “injury that creates a substantial risk of death, causes serious disfigurement or causes substantial loss or impairment of mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any particular bodily member or organ”.

Today, Dan Wright, of GSOC, who told the tribunal he was involved in setting up GSOC and writing many of its policies, told the tribunal that, in all his time at GSOC, he can’t ever recall taking a referral such as the one that was sent in to GSOC in respect of Garda Harrison in October 2013.

Ms Simms had neither died nor was seriously injured in the row.

The two rationales communicated to Mr Wright for the Section 102 referral were from Supt McGovern, who said it was due to the “psychological harm” element of the incident and, from Chief Supt Terry McGinn, that it was their belief that Garda Harrison may cause either death or serious harm to Ms Simms in the future.

Mr Wright told the tribunal that GSOC is concerned about matters in the past not the future and that the protection of life and property is a matter for An Garda Siochana and not GSOC.

But first to recap.

Readers will recall the following sequence of events:

September 28 2013: Marissa Simms and Garda Harrison had a row.

October 2, 2013: Ms Simms’ mother Rita McDermott made a statement to Inspector Goretti Sheridan and Sgt Jim Collins about Garda Harrison.

In her statement, Ms McDermott is recorded as saying: “Marisa has said that Keith threatened to burn her and the children…She is scared for her life. He said something about burning her and the children and something about take a good look at them children and you will only see them at weekends.”

October 6, 2013: Ms Simms made a statement to Inspector Goretti Sheridan and Sgt Brigid McGowan in Letterkenny Garda Station over 8.5 hours.

In that statement, it’s recorded that Ms Simms claimed Garda Harrison threatened to burn her during a row on September 28, 2013.

Also in her statement, Ms Simms is recorded as saying that, during texts and emails, during the week after their row and that he: “…didn’t mean that he was physically going to burn me but meant that he was going to destroy me.”

Ms Simms has since told the tribunal that Garda Harrison never threatened to burn her and that he told her she was going to ‘get burnt’ if she didn’t stop trying to please everyone.

October 8, 2013: A meeting is called by Chief Supt for Donegal division Terry McGinn in Letterkenny Garda Station. Those present at the meeting were: Inspector Goretti Sheridan; Chief Supt Terry McGinn; Supt Michael Finan, Detective Inspector Pat O’Donnell and Carl Campbell, of Garda internal affairs.

Also on October 8, 2013, Ms Simms handed her phone into Letterkenny Garda Station. However the tribunal has heard it was not analysed until the start of the tribunal in March 2017.

As mentioned above, at this meeting of October 8, 2013, it was decided that the statements of Ms Simms and Ms McDermott would be forwarded to both the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) and a referral would be made Tusla and that an investigation would get under way.

The tribunal has heard evidence from Dan Wright of the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission, who was the senior investigating officer on call for Section 102 referrals on October 8, 2013.

This morning, he told the tribunal that he received a phonecall from Supt Eugene McGovern at around 12.35pm in which Supt McGovern informed him of a referral over threats by a garda to kill a female.

The tribunal has already heard that, on the same day, an email was sent from Chief Superintendent Anthony McLoughlin of the ‘B’ Branch , or Garda human resources, to Chief Supt Terry McGinn at 12.53pm.

The email stated:

Terry

RE: above and discussion on same. I know that the Supt will inform GSOC. But I am of the view that GSOC should be informed pursuant to S85 of the Act and at this time it is not a S102 referral.
Thanks
Tony

However, Chief Supt McGinn wrote back at 13.14pm:

Tony
The situation has been assessed and Supt McGovern has already made a referral pursuant to S102. We await a response from GSOC.
T

The tribunal has already heard that George O’Doherty, Head of Corporate Services and Human Resources at GSOC, rang Ms Simms about the statement GSOC received on October 9 – at which point she was in hospital with an infection – and that they shared another phone call on October 11, 2013, during which Ms Simms told Mr O’Doherty she did not want GSOC to deal with the matter.

Mr O’Doherty told the tribunal that Rita McDermott’s statement was hearsay as it was third party evidence.

This morning.

Mr Wright told the tribunal that GSOC is compelled to receive every Section 102 referral and there is “clear blue water” between a decision by An Garda Siochana to send a referral and whatever decision GSOC makes in respect of that referral.

Mr Wright told the tribunal “neither group will trespass on the remit of the other”.

Mr Wright said he had heard evidence over the past few weeks that there was this “notion” that GSOC could reject or decline referrals. He said this isn’t true and that once a Section 102 referral is made, GSOC have to deal with it.

He also said there is no power within An Garda Siochana to revoke such a referral.

Mr Wright said that when he spoke to Supt McGovern on the phone he made it clear to him that the protection of life and property is a matter for An Garda Siochana and not for GSOC.

In terms of Mr Wright being aware of Chief Supt McGinn’s rationale for the Section 102 referral – any possible future chance of Garda Harrison harming Ms Simms – Mr Wright said he couldn’t recall where he got that information from.

In terms of Ms Simms telling Mr O’Doherty that she did not wish GSOC to deal with the matter, Mr Wright confirmed to the tribunal that GSOC is not precluded from looking into a matter that it feels would be in the public interest.

Similarly, under cross-examination from Mark Harty SC, for Garda Harrison, Mr Wright confirmed that there is no law in the Garda Act to preclude members of An Garda Siochana from carrying out its own investigation into claims referred to GSOC.

He said:

“You don’t just stand back and do nothing. There are steps to be taken and we would expect those steps to be taken.”

Mr Harty has already told the tribunal that 15 months passed – from the day Ms Simms made her statement – before any garda asked Garda Harrison about the claims.

Last week, while cross-examining Supt McGovern, Mr Harty accused the gardai of not treating the ‘burn’ threat seriously but Supt McGovern said this wasn’t true and that “All threats that come to our attention are assessed.”

The tribunal also heard that Mr Wright wrote to Kevin Clarke, principal officer of the Garda Division in the Department of Justice, on December 10, 2013, in respect of the Section 102 referral.

The correspondence stated:

“I refer to incident referred to GSOC by Supt Eugene McGovern of Milford Garda Station, Co Donegal under Section 102 on Tuesday, October 8, 2013. An examination under Section 91 of the Garda Siochana Act 2005 has been conducted in relation to the above incident and following the examination, the matter has been discontinued.

“The examination of the circumstances clearly shows that at the time of this referral being made, there was no death or serious harm and the matter should have instead been notified to the Garda Ombudsman pursuant to Section 85 of the Act in the normal way. GSOC accepts, however, that the decision to make such a referral is a matter entirely for the Garda Síochána as per current protocol agreement.”

Ms Simms withdrew her statement  on January 11, 2014.

In February 2014, Superintendent Mary Murray was appointed to carry out an independent investigation into Garda Harrison.

On May 14, 2014, Garda Harrison made a protected disclosure.

Chief Supt Terry McGinn confirmed to the tribunal that Supt Murray didn’t take any action until December 2014.

Supt Murray has yet to give evidence.

The tribunal continues.

Previously: ‘It Is A Case Of The Tribunal Blowing Figuratively A Bugle As Loud As It Possibly Can’

Rollingnews

Paul Murphy TD, of Solidarity, in Leinster House as Joan Burton TD, of the Labour Party speaks to the media on the Dáil plinth after Tuesday’s budgetary oversight committee

…. Confidence in the Garda Siochána is not an optional extra. It is the bedrock of public compliance and a properly functioning society. As a succession of scandals wash over the force, it is essential the public are assured that when gardaí give evidence in court, they speak nothing but the truth in accordance with their best recollection of sometimes fraught situations.

A Garda statement, saying a senior officer was conducting a review of organisational practices and policies arising out of Jobstown and “other issues of note”, may also have created the misleading impression that it would include evidence given in court. The Garda Commissioner made clear yesterday that this was not the case. A full Gsoc investigation is needed and Paul Murphy, if he is serious about anything other than crass political advantage, could usefully seek it.

A Case For Gsoc To Investigate (Irish Times editorial)

Meanwhile…

Thuggery!

Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan at the Public Accounts Committee on Tuesday

At the Public Accounts Committee in respect of financial irregularities at the Garda College on Tuesday, some TDs spoke of how convenient it was that Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan had referred a report on the alleged placement of EU funds into an AIB bank account in Cabra, controlled by a retired senior officer, to GSOC, on Monday.

The move largely precluded Ms O’Sullivan from discussing the matter in detail.

Ms O’Sullivan specifically told the committee:

I am conscious that the matter has been referred to GSOC and now forms part of its consideration and examination. I will be precluded from discussing a lot of a detail but I am happy if I can assist the Deputy with his questions.”

Further to this.

Broadsheet understands GSOC generally does not investigate retired members of An Garda Siochana.

This is because GSOC operates under the Garda Siochana Act 2005, and it’s basically a disciplinary procedure for serving Garda members.

In addition, if GSOC did uphold a complaint against a retired member, it can take little or no action against retired members in terms of reduced rank or pay.

Earlier: ‘It Might Be Useful To Ask The Central Bank To Have A Look At This’

Previously: A Templemore Timeline

The Public Accounts Committee this morning

This morning.

Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan has told the Public Accounts Committee that she has referred suspicions of fraudulent activity related to the Garda College in Templemore, Co Tipperary – made by Head of Internal Audit Niall Kelly – to the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission (GSOC).

It follows a verbal briefing made by Mr Kelly to Ms O’Sullivan on Friday, when she requested a written report about the matter. This report was given to Ms O’Sullivan yesterday.

Meanwhile…

Fianna Fáil TD Marc Mac Sharry (above) repeatedly asked Ms O’Sullivan for the identity of the signatory of an AIB account in Cabra, Dublin.

This account is being investigated by the Garda Internal Audit Section after it found large sums of public money were sent to credit union and bank accounts opened and controlled by gardaí.

Ms O’Sullivan refused to name any signatory or signatories.

Mr Mac Sharry said: “We’re now not entitled to know that because, very conveniently, it was kicked into GSOC yesterday evening and we’re not going to know. It’s on the never never. God knows who’ll be on the Public Accounts Committee when that information comes out?”

In response, Ms O’Sullivan said: “Under no circumstances was this matter referred to GSOC to keep it from the view or the public view of this committee. It was referred to GSOC because that is the appropriate, impartial and objective statutory body that are there to carry out examinations and investigations…”

Watch proceedings live here

Earlier: A Templemore Timeline

gsocnoirin

jim

From top: Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission office; Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan; and Fianna Fáil justice spokesman Jim O’Callaghan

This morning, the Irish Examiner reported that GSOC cannot obtain documents in relation to the O’Higgins Commission which investigated complaints made by Sgt Maurice McCabe.

In addition, it also reported that Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan cited legal restrictions under the Commission of Investigations Act 2004 as reasons for why she could not give GSOC certain documents in relation to a public interest investigation regarding Sgt McCabe’s claims.

This is despite the fact that it was Commissioner O’Sullivan who originally called on GSOC to carry out such an investigation.

Further to this…

After recently telling RTÉ’s Six One News that he had “confidence” in Ms O’Sullivan. Fianna Fáil’s justice spokesman Jim O’Callaghan spoke to Áine Lawlor on RTÉ’s News at One about his proposal to get around the legal issues.

Áine Lawlor: “Jim O’Callaghan is proposing a change in the Commission of Investigation’s Act that would overcome this hurdle and he joins us now from our Dáil studio. Good afternoon, Jim O’Callaghan.”

Jim O’Callaghan: “Good afternoon.”

Lawlor: “The specific problem. What is it? That nobody basically can have access to the private papers, the private recordings, or testimonies given to a private commission of inquiry – even though there’s public interest investigation going on by GSOC. Is that it?”

O”Callaghan: “Yes that is the problem. In June of this year, the Tanaiste referred to GSOC, the issue about the two conflicting accounts of the meeting in Mullingar, in 2008. She made that reference under Section 102 of the Garda Siochana Act. We now learn that GSOC wrote to An Garda Siochana, seeking access to all documents, including transcripts. Now the Garda aren’t allowed to provide those transcripts because of Section 11 of the Commission of Investigation Act 2004. So I would have thought that if the story in the Examiner today is correct that there is a relatively simple method of getting around this problem which would be by amending Section 11, to provide for one other provision whereby the information could be provided. And that would be if there’s an ongoing investigation being conducted by GSOC under part 4 of the Garda Siochana Act.”

Lawlor: “And, indeed, you’ve sent us a copy of your proposed Commission of Investigation amendment bill. It’s nice and short. We understand this matter has been referred to the Attorney General. Do we know if she is looking at a simple legislative change, like yours, would unblock this roadblock?

O’Callaghan: “Well, we had a similar roadblock, in respect of the Judge Cregan inquiry [into IBRC transactions and write-offs] when Judge Cregan said that the underlying legislation didn’t allow him access to confidential information. And there was a small amending piece of legislation introduced in order to facilitate him. So the alternative here is that the GSOC inquiry doesn’t go any further. I don’t think that’s an option. Consequently, I think we should give consideration to amending the legislation. Obviously, it’s all dependent on the story in the Examiner being correct. If the story is correct, well then I think the only solution to it would be to provide for some amending legislation.”

Lawlor: “And, should it be true, would it not have dawned on anyone back in June, particularly given that this kind of roadblock around the privacy of commission of inquiries that that had cropped before, that might be an issue in this case.”

O’Callaghan: “Well, I have to say, I was slightly surprised when I heard that GSOC hadn’t commenced there investigation into this. They were asked to investigate two conflicting accounts of a meeting that took place in Mullingar and they say they need the transcripts, they’re the investigator. But I would have thought they should be able to commence the investigation even if they didn’t have access to the transcripts. So, it’s an investigation that could, in my opinion, be conducted without the transcripts. However, they’re the investigator. They said they need them and they’re not going to commence unless they get them and I think we need to respond to what they state.”

Listen back in full here

Previously: Untold Damage

00135225

Hmmm.

Meanwhile, in yesterday’s Irish Independent…

A leak about leaks written by man who got leak.

Paul Williams reported:

A three-year GSOC investigation into claims by Independent TD Clare Daly that gardaí leaked details of her arrest for suspected drink-driving has been closed after finding no evidence to support the allegation.

The controversial probe was launched after Ms Daly had lodged a complaint alleging that gardaí leaked details of her arrest for suspected drink driving on January 28, 2013 – subsequent tests showed that Ms Daly was below the limit….

Garda cleared of leaking TD arrest details (Irish Independent)

Previously: The Daly What

Screen Shot 2016-01-20 at 12.21.18

Sunday World crime correspondant Nicola Tallant, Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy, Fine Gael TD Fergus O’Dowd and John Devine, of Transparency International Ireland on TV3’s Tonight with Vincent Browne last night

Further to the recent reports that GSOC accessed the telephone records of three journalists without their knowledge or consent – and this morning’s reports that 62,000 applications for access to landline, mobile phone and internet records were made over five years, the majority by Gardaí…

Last night’s panel on the Tonight with Vincent Browne show, presented by Michael Clifford of the Irish Examiner, discussed the matter.

On the panel were Sunday World crime correspondant Nicola Tallant, Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy, Fine Gael TD Fergus O’Dowd and John Devine, of Transparency International Ireland.

They discussed last year’s RTE reports about how Paul Murphy was to be charged, the relationship between some gardaí and some members of the media and Nicola Tallant’s own complaint to GSOC about gardaí allegedly accessing her phone records.

Grab a tay.

Michael Clifford: “You work in the area of crime, what do you think of this story? How it’s being handled?”

Nicola Tallant: “Yeah, you just mentioned there that obviously the fight against crime, when you see it in the courts, obviously surveillance and phone records and all that are vital. I think before 2011, when the powers came to the gardaí, that they could, anyone over Superintendent level could sign off to get anybody’s phone records. It was actually dealt with…”

Clifford: “Chief superintendent, I think…”

Tallant: “Under the Terrorism Act. So that is how it has transferred now, it has gone from, it had been dealt with under the Terrorism Act when it didn’t exactly have to be an act of terrorism that you were investigating but it had to be pretty high up. It’s now transformed to if, it’s a culmination I think of this data protection plus the 2005 Garda Síochána Act which makes it illegal for a member of the guards to pass on leaked information that causes harm. You know, the information cannot just be, it’s not illegal for them just to…”

Clifford: “But any confidential information, and most of which guards would have, when you says causes harm, I don’t think there’s any provision that passing on information has to cause harm. How do you define harm?”

Tallant: “Well they do define the harm actually, in the act, and they define it, it is actually quite, there’s a list of things that are defined as harm and they include collapsing trials, that kind of…”

Clifford: “Reputation?”

Tallant: “There’s a few, you know, identifying a witness who has given information in confidentiality, they’re quite strict actually…”

Clifford: “Yeah.”

Tallant: “And I think it has probably been misused a little bit by guards as a bit of a fishing exercise to see who’s talking to the media.”

Clifford: “And is there not also a question, to be fair, that an awful lot of the information that flows from Garda sources to the media is tittle tattle, is invasive of people and, basically, in terms of any test in the public interest, it doesn’t pass it?”

Tallant: “Well some of it is and some of it is very relevant…”

Clifford: “Some of it is but a lot of it isn’t.”

Tallant: “Well, I mean, what, it depends on what you consider to be tittle tattle, what you consider to be in the public interest…”

Clifford: “I’ll give you an example – Paul Murphy beside you. Paul you’ve the issue whereby there was a leak to the media about the fact that you were going to face prosecution – and we’re not touching  the substance of the prosecution, but just in terms of how that came about. How did that come about?”

Paul Murphy: “Yes, the first I heard that myself and 20 something other people would be charged with false imprisonment and other charges related to the protests last year was on RTE Radio from Paul Reynolds, the crime correspondent. That was when we heard we were going to be charged, then nothing actually happened for weeks and weeks. And then the day before we actually were charged, as far as I remember, I got a call, again from Paul Reynolds,  at 5.55pm,  to say that he was going on Six One, headline news,  and to tell us that we were going to be charged.”

Clifford: “And it’s also, just to put a bit of context on it from recollection. Two days before that first, news report on RTE, I think there was a newspaper report suggesting that you wouldn’t be charged and one could surmise that somebody somewhere felt it might be necessary to get word out there to the contrary and suddenly, it appears in RTE.”

Murphy: “Correct, and that whole experience for me raised a significant question mark over the relationship between the gardaí, or some gardaí, and some journalists and the reality that some journalists act, in some way, as an extension of the Garda Press Office. They give a Garda line on certain stories in exchange for which they get information and I think that’s extremely damaging from the point of view of public debate, from the point of view of our reputation because I think there was a purpose for that being leaked which contradicts the previous story and also to soften opinion for what was a shocking event: the idea that people were being charged with false imprisonment…”

Clifford: “Well it’s conjecture whether that was, yeah, fair enough. John [Devine], what do you think of Paul’s assessment of that relationship?”

John Devine: “Yeah, we’ve pointed out in the wake of the Garda whistleblower controversy that there seems to be two cosy relationships between some journalists and the gardaí. And it’s not something that just affects media in Ireland. Elizabeth Filkin and Lord Leveson in the UK reported on the cosy relationship between the Metropolitan Police and the British press which were subject to investigation by Leveson and found that, in many cases, payments were being made to police officers for information, they were being wined and dined, they…”

Clifford: “I don’t think there’s any evidence whatsoever that that goes on in this jurisdiction..”

Devine: “I’m not, it’s not to say that there’s anything of, to that level, happening here but, at the same time, many of our journalists are dependent on the gardaí, for the information that feeds their stories. And Leveson and Filkin pointed out that this is an incentive for journalists to toe the line, to be uncritical, to not question police decisions and to turn a blind eye to abuses and, in some cases, by…”

Clifford: “What do you think of that Nicola?”

Tallant:There seems to be this kind of myth that is growing all the time, that crime correspondents are just fed a line from gardaí or they go down to headquarters and are given a story. My experience, and I’ve been at it 20 years or more, is that a guard wouldn’t know a story really if it hit them in the face. Now a journalist, a journalist knows a story, a journalist goes after a story and they have various sources of information. A lot of them get information on the ground on stories. People covering a daily beat. We have that body in the suitcase there this week that would be, the daily journalists are following that every day. They’re out on the crime scene.”

Devine: “We do know some crime journalists are favoured and this isn’t an Irish phenomenon, this is in the UK, it’s in the United States, there are some journalists who will have information that their colleagues will not have and that’s by virtue of the fact they’ve nurtured a relationship with their contacts in the police.”

Clifford: “And there is one other dynamic there, Nicola, in terms of GSOC and these phone records. GSOC have been at loggerheads with the gardaí on a number of occasions over the last few years and I think it would be fair to say that, in a number of incidences, reportage of that dispute was skewed very much in favour of the gardaí and against GSOC. And now we’ve a scenario where GSOC have apparently these untrammelled powers and they well be targeting the very journalists they might believe are targeting them, all of course, none of it intentional but I think it would be fair enough to surmise that there will be no love lost there, in those quarters.”

Tallant: “I actually think GSOC have done all of us a favour in journalism by the fact the very fact that they have focused this. They have gone in, they have been given these powers and they’ve gone into it like bulldozers and they have really made it very obvious what they were doing with the phone records. I’ve spoken to some of the journalists who are involved in it and it was just quite astounding how obvious they’ve made it. You see the guards have been doing this for years but they’ve been doing it much sneakier…”

Clifford: “Clare Daly made the point today and it was pretty valid. Us in the media, including myself we didn’t pay a hell of a lot of attention to it until the focus was turned on journalists.”

Tallant: “Well I paid attention to it because I made a complaint actually about my phone, about gardai accessing the records from my phone way back, from 2010, but I made the complaint to GSOC who were very positive about it in the beginning and came back to me just before Christmas to say there wasn’t anything that they could do, the guards couldn’t answer them…”

Related: No widespread snooping on private citizens (RTE)

Earlier: How Many?

Previously: “Come Back When You’re Sober”

Watch back in full here

imgres

 

Almost 62,000 applications for access to landline, mobile phone and internet data were made to companies providing services to the Irish public by State authorities in a five-year period.

An Garda Síochána made almost all of the requests, security sources have told The Irish Times.

…The information received for the five-year period to the end of 2012 has been made available by the Irish authorities to the European Commission. Between 2008 and 2012 the number of applications for data reached 61,823; a rate of more than 1,000 a month. Of those, 98.7 per cent were granted.

… In 2012, half of the requests made by the Garda and other agencies such as GSOC, Defence Forces and Revenue Commissioners related to mobile phone records. The remaining applications for data were split roughly evenly between landlines and internet services.

Majority of 62,000 data requests made by Garda (Irish Times)

Previously: GSOC Snoop Guide

They Snoop To Conquer