On September 24, 2025, a long-awaited report landed in Belfast, casting a harsh light on the Police Service of Northern Ireland's (PSNI) surveillance of journalists, lawyers, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) between 2011 and 2024. The review, led by respected London barrister Angus McCullough KC, has already been described by Computer Weekly as one of the most consequential examinations of policing and press freedom in Northern Ireland for a generation. Its findings, stretching across a 200-page document, have sent shockwaves through the region’s media, legal, and political communities.
The McCullough Review was commissioned in June 2024 by Chief Constable Jon Boutcher, following a ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) in the case of journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey. The IPT had found that both the PSNI and the Metropolitan Police unlawfully spied on Birney, McCaffrey, and a former Police Ombudsman official, all connected to a 2017 film about the 1994 Loughinisland atrocity. That film, which investigated the murder of six Catholic men in a UVF attack, became a flashpoint for questions about state surveillance and the protection of journalistic sources.
The review’s scope was broad. McCullough had full access to police files, personnel, and more than 50 submissions from journalists, lawyers, and others. According to BBC News, the PSNI had previously admitted to making more than 300 applications to access the communications data of journalists over 13 years, at least ten of which were attempts to trace sources. But the review found the real figure was even higher, with 378 applications for journalists and 155 for lawyers between January 2011 and November 2024. Of the lawyer-related applications, 138 were approved, and 37 involved the lawyers’ own data.
Perhaps most troubling were the revelations about so-called “defensive operations.” These involved the PSNI’s Professional Standards Department routinely checking journalists’ phone numbers against internal communication records to identify unauthorized contact between police officers or staff and reporters. McCullough described the process as “washing through” journalists’ numbers, and found it was only formally discontinued in May 2024. According to The Irish News, McCullough’s report stated, “No legal advice appears to have been sought in relation to the legality or propriety of the practice… there seems to have been a lack of awareness until very recently that it might give rise to issues in relation to data protections and the rights of those whose data was being used unknowingly.” He concluded that the practice “does not appear to have been necessary or proportionate” or compatible with the “rights of journalists” whose data was processed. The scale and duration of these operations, he added, is of “significant concern.”
Beyond the numbers, the review uncovered concrete cases of directed surveillance. Investigative journalist Donal McIntyre, well-known for his work on the death of 14-year-old Noah Donohoe in 2020, was placed under a Directed Surveillance Application (DSA) by the PSNI. DSAs allow for covert recording of a person’s movements, conversations, and activities. In a previous report to the Policing Board, the PSNI claimed there had been “no authorised use” of this power during the period in question. McCullough’s review found this to be incorrect. DSAs were also used in relation to Birney, McCaffrey, and a former Police Ombudsman official, as well as a third unnamed journalist and a lawyer suspected of serious criminal activity. The review noted, however, that the DSA on the unnamed journalist “appears to have been appropriately obtained and conducted.”
The institutional context for these revelations is complex. Chief Constable Jon Boutcher, who took up his post in late 2023, has publicly pledged to address past failings and embrace independent scrutiny. According to Computer Weekly, the review’s existence and Boutcher’s willingness to draw a line under unlawful practices represent a real test of institutional reform. The Policing Board and Police Ombudsman were included in the review’s terms of reference, and board members held a special meeting at Stormont on Tuesday to discuss whether a formal inquiry under Section 60 of the Police (NI) Act 2000 is warranted. No decision was reached, but the potential costs and duration—possibly up to three years—were reportedly discussed.
The review’s transparency and speed have been striking. McCullough, who is not known as an establishment figure, completed the probe within 10 months of closing the evidence submissions window. His openness encouraged many to come forward who might otherwise have remained silent. As Donal MacIntyre wrote in Computer Weekly, “For those of us whose lives and work fall within the review’s terms of reference, his willingness to listen has been both encouraging and, frankly, unprecedented.”
The stakes are high. Representative bodies such as the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and Amnesty International have warned that unlawful surveillance of journalists not only undermines individual rights but also damages the public’s ability to hold power to account. The review is expected to recommend accountability measures, clearer rules on social media monitoring, better audit trails for surveillance authorizations, and stronger protections for journalists, lawyers, and NGOs. McCullough made 16 recommendations in total, and has proposed that the PSNI refer itself to the Information Commissioner in light of the “scale and duration” of its defensive operations.
For some, the review does not go far enough. Journalist Allison Morris, writing in The Belfast Telegraph, noted she was one of four journalists not included in the review but said her sources confirmed that PSNI surveillance “crossed acceptable lines.” Similarly, MacIntyre recounted how a whistleblower had contacted him alleging unlawful surveillance while he investigated the Noah Donohoe case. He also described how his car was broken into at Heathrow in November 2024, with confidential papers rifled through but valuables left behind—a chilling reminder of the risks faced by those who challenge official narratives.
Meanwhile, recent events have only heightened the sense of urgency. MI5 recently admitted to illegally obtaining communications data from journalist Vincent Kearney’s mobile phone while he worked at the BBC, underscoring that the issues extend beyond the PSNI alone. The review did not examine cases currently before the IPT, but the tribunal remains a crucial avenue for redress for those who believe they have been the victims of unlawful covert interference by state agencies.
As the dust settles on the McCullough Review’s publication, the question now is whether the PSNI, the Policing Board, and other oversight bodies will translate findings into meaningful change. Will there be clearer rules, stronger safeguards, and genuine accountability—or will this be just another inquiry that gathers dust? For the press, the public, and the courts, the facts are now on the table, and the next steps will determine whether this marks the start of reform or yet another missed opportunity for justice and transparency in Northern Ireland.
