An investigation ordered by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) to establish the source of a leak to a newspaper that reported the watchdog suspected it was under surveillance has suggested there may have been a number of sources.
The GSOC has been mired in controversy since the Sunday Times reported in February the commission suspected its premises were under surveillance and had engaged a British counter-intelligence firm to conduct a security sweep.
A report by retired High Court judge Mr Justice John Cooke, published in June, found no evidence bugging had taken place at the GSOC offices last year. However, it noted that, given the sophistication of modern surveillance equipment, it could not rule the bugging possibility out.
Separately, the GSOC asked barrister Mark Connaughton SC to carry out a "fact-finding investigation" to ascertain the source of the leak to Sunday Times journalist John Mooney.
The GSOC tonight published a report which included excerpts of Mr Connaughton’s findings with “as much detail as is possible” after a previous statement, which said it would not be publishing the report because it contained personal data. Tonight’s version did not include operational, investigative or personal details.
In the report, Mr Mark Connaughton said he was “satisfied” the journalist in question received confidential information from some person or persons associated with the security sweep.
However, he was “not able to establish when he received such information, from whom he received it, or indeed the exact nature of the information disclosed”.
He added “it is possible that [the journalist] had a number of sources, some of whom may have been external” as the sweep undertaken “necessitated interaction with external persons for various technical purposes”.
Mr Connaughton was satisfied the journalist did not have a copy of the internal report on the Garda watchdog’s suspicions, as the content of the article “cannot be reconciled” with the content of the report.
He said "certain of the content of the article...is so inaccurate that one must surmise that either the actual findings of that sweep were deliberately exaggerated and conveyed that way to [the Sunday Times journalist] or there was a lack of understanding on the part of the source or sources and the [the Sunday Times journalist] simply reported what had been revealed".
He added that he believed “the latter to be much closer to the truth”.
Mr Connaughton said he examined the information that appeared in the public domain and compared it with all possible source documents in order to establish what specific documents and data seemed to have been available to Mr Mooney and what documents were not.
He also examined who - internally and externally - may have had access to the documents containing information gleaned by the journalist.
As the investigation was “most interested” in dealings between the GSOC and the journalist - who declined to be interviewed by Mr Connaughton - it focused on the relationship between the GSOC and journalists generally, including how and through whom business was habitually conducted.
Mr Connaughton also interviewed a number of current and previous GSOC staff. All were co-operative, he said.
He also had access to e-mail correspondence, photocopier logs, CCTV recordings, documentation pertaining to investigations, internal policies and procedures, and technical analysis of any mobile phones requested.
