Out of the fog and into the darkness with GSOC crises

The GSOC bugging crisis has the appearance of a fog.

You can look at it, but you cannot grasp it. You can see a few feet in front of you, but not through it.

And like a fog it is shifting and rolling of its own mysterious volition.

The focus of the crisis is now moving away from why the surveillance wasn’t reported to who leaked the secret report.

Again lost in the mist are the more substantive issues: Was GSOC actually bugged and who might have done the bugging?

The grounds for believing there was a surveillance operation received a battering thanks to a Government campaign to undermine its credibility. The Government also tried to undermine the independence of GSOC by strongly criticising it for failing to report it to the minister for justice.

The Government focused on the lack of “definitive evidence” to pour cold water on the surveillance claims. People had to reach for their dictionaries to check the meaning of “definitive”, which according to Oxford’s means “unconditional”.

Essentially it is the equivalent to proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial — a higher level of proof than proof on the balance of probabilities, which is the benchmark used in the civil courts and tribunals of inquiry.

At the very least, the session by GSOC leaders at the Oireachtas Public Services Oversight Committee appeared to demonstrate credible and legitimate reasons for suspecting they might have been under surveillance.

The behaviour of a conference phone facility and the discovery of a high-tech mobile phone scanner raised reasons for concern, even if the findings were “imprecise”, “inconclusive” and left “a lot of unanswered questions”.

What’s far more baffling, let alone controversial, is who would bug GSOC?

It was revealed at the committee that a public interest investigation was set up to determine if such surveillance originated within An Garda Síochána and if a member of the force was involved.

The basis for suspecting gardaí didn’t emerge at the committee, apart from it coming against the background of what GSOC said were concerns at information in the public domain that only they had. The Irish Examiner understands this included things gardaí said to them about sensitive GSOC investigations.

One garda source believes GSOC suffered from “paranoia” and “group think” rather than solid evidence for suspecting gardaí.

A number of gardaí and former gardaí told the Irish Examiner it would be “suicide” and “lunacy” for gardaí to bug GSOC, given they would be the obvious suspects if any signs of bugging ever materialised.

A garda source said they did not have the mobile phone scanner technology detected by the security team: “We do not have that capability. I wish we did. We would use it on criminal gangs. People would say we would say that, but we don’t.”

Who else could be behind it? GSOC chair Simon O’Brien did mention that journalists and complainants could theoretically be involved. It has also been suggested criminal gangs would also be interested in certain high-profile investigations or might want to use sensitive information or personal details of gardaí to threaten or blackmail officers. But would these groups be able to access the mobile scanner, said to be only available to government agencies?

It has also been speculated that international companies and even foreign intelligence agencies would have, or have had, interest in certain investigations.

But the only ‘who’ being focused is who leaked the report to the media. Not that this isn’t a genuine cause of concern. It is. It affects both the reputation and effectiveness of the watchdog and how potential complainants and gardaí view it. Can they depend on the security of the information they give to it?

“It’s clearly the case we have a problem internally and I suspect that is a real issue,” said Mr O’Brien. He said “less than seven” people had access to the secret report he believes was leaked to The Sunday Times.

Intriguingly, he also said “it could be likely” that the person who leaked the report “could be responsible for other issues”.