The Committee on the Administration of Justice has accused the North's Police Authority of using its "code of openness and accountability" to keep information from the public. The authority has denied the claim.
The CAJ pointed to two meetings in June and July when the RUC Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, was questioned by the authority on important issues, such as the murder of the Lurgan solicitor, Ms Rosemary Nelson.
Details of the talks are not disclosed in the minutes, as it is claimed they are exempt from publication under the code. At the July meeting Sir Ronnie addressed information from the CAJ to the Northern Ireland Office on threats against Ms Nelson. Sir Ronnie said the RUC had given the NIO an assessment of the threat and the NIO had responded to the CAJ.
Further details of the discussion are not published in the minutes, which cite their exemption under the code. Mr Paul Mageean of the CAJ said: "The Police Authority is meant to hold the RUC accountable on behalf of the public.
"But the public is no wiser than before these meetings with Ronnie Flanagan took place. Discussion of almost every controversial issue is not published. We can't tell if the authority is doing its job properly and asking the necessary questions and we aren't told Sir Ronnie's answers either." In a statement last night the authority's chief executive, Mr Joe Stewart, said it was "fully committed to holding the RUC Chief Constable to account and ensuring the community is given as much access as possible to information made available to the authority".
Mr Stewart said the minutes were a record of the range of issues dealt with and were an accurate reflection of the debate. He said "they are not intended to be a verbatim record of the debate. It would not be practical or appropriate to do so. The authority's approach to the release of information is based on the principle that information should be released except where disclosure would not be in the public interest.
"In writing and publishing our minutes we are acutely aware of the need to strike a balance between holding the Chief Constable to account and ensuring there is free and detailed discussion on many highly sensitive security issues."