The Cooke Report into GSOC sweep an "exercise in smoke and mirrors"

The Cooke report into why GSOC carried a security sweep of its offices following fears of bugging was described as an "exercise in smoke and mirrors" by the Irish Council of Civil Liberties.

The report found that while it was impossible — based on the available technological information — to rule out the possibility of covert surveillance, there was a lack of evidence to show that it took place on a level first reported in The Sunday Times or “much less” that it was carried out by the gardaí.

Mark Kelly, director of the Irish Council of Civil Liberties, questioned the original terms of reference set by the Government when it announced the establishment of the inquiry in February.

“There hasn’t yet been an investigation into whether or not GSOC has been bugged,” he said.

“The Cooke report does something different, quite different, which is it investigates whether or not GSOC had some reason to think that they might have been, and that is not the same thing.”

Mr Kelly said Mr Cooke was “constrained by terms of reference” and found “precisely what it seems to have been preordained that he would find: That it is impossible to rule out categorically all possibility of covert surveillance.”

The Irish Council of Civil Liberties said it was “striking” that Mr Cooke made no independent investigative attempt to establish objectively whether or not surveillance of GSOC by An Garda Síochána had been sought or authorised.

“It seems that not a single member of An Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces was interviewed; no examination of the records kept of the use of surveillance equipment by police or military intelligence services took place, nor were the ‘oversight’ activities of the ‘designated judges’ under the relevant legislation subject to any form of review, Mr Kelly said, adding that Mr Cooke “could not have compelled an answer, but he didn’t even ask”.

“The judge’s exclusive focus on whether or not GSOC’s levels of suspicion regarding surveillance were well-founded entirely side-steps the core question of whether or not any agency of the State sought or obtained permission to engage in surveillance of our independent police complaints authority.

“A report that merely revisits a range of more or less plausible explanations for communications anomalies, without even attempting to compare them with information readily available to the police and military intelligence services, can only be qualified as an exercise in smoke and mirrors.”