Q&A

The terms of reference at No. 4 identify the individuals and groups within the scope of the review. General concerns that others may hold cannot be considered by the review, except to the extent that those of ‘special status’ are involved. The definition of 'special status’ is being kept under consideration, but the purpose of the review is to investigate concerns affecting the specific groups currently identified.

The start date is, to a degree, arbitrary but strikes a practical balance. It reflects the period adopted in the Chief Constable’s June 2024 report to the Policing Board and there is some advantage to adopting the same period for the purposes of the review, including in evaluating the information in that report. It is necessary to have clear parameters for the period under review, so to have a defined start date. In agreeing the terms of reference it was felt that to go back further than 2011 would substantially increase the work (and so the time it will take) for limited additional reassurance. As it is, a period of some 13 years to consider is a considerable period of time in terms of the work involved in reviewing PSNI conduct over that period. The period under review is being kept under consideration as the work proceeds.

The reviewer has been assured by the Chief Constable that all serving PSNI staff are required to cooperate with this review. The reviewer will also have full access to PSNI records. In effect, the reviewer has powers of compulsion in these respects, through the authority of the Chief Constable.

Although there are no formal powers of compulsion, any former PSNI staff are permitted and encouraged by the Chief Constable to engage with the review. Any person with relevant information is urged to contact the review, as indicated in the answer to the next question.

The review does not have any powers to provide legal remedies, nor authority to provide legal advice. Contributing information to the review does not affect the entitlement of anybody, if so advised, to raise a complaint with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, or any other relevant judicial body.

There is a questionnaire available be downloaded on the website. That should be completed and returned in confidence to the reviewer. If you wish to submit documents to the review we will be in touch with instructions as to how that can be done, to a secure document repository.

Individuals are expected to identify themselves to the reviewer but will not be identified any more widely, including to PSNI. After discussion with the Group of Experts and Stakeholders (GoES), no individual contacting the review will be identified to them either. Anyone coming under suspicion of wrongdoing will not automatically be entitled to anonymity and will be warned accordingly.

In relation to wrongdoing, under the terms of reference at No. 17:  “any individual or group that is the victim of such wrongdoing shall be informed  … by the [Chief Constable], in so far as possible in compliance with applicable statutory and common law duties”. The main statutory duty that may prevent an individual being informed is the prohibition under s.57 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, in relation to specified warrants under that Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Other legitimate reasons for non-disclosure include national security or the prevention of crime. The reviewer is committed to pressing for as much disclosure to anyone found to be a victim of wrongdoing as is possible under the law.

As set out in the answer to Q6, there is a presumption that individuals who have been subject to unlawful surveillance will be informed, subject to legal constraints. However, it will not generally be possible to confirm or deny to individuals or organisations whether they have been subject to police surveillance, given legal (as well as practical) limitations. It is nevertheless intended that the review should reach clear general conclusions in relation to PSNI conduct over the relevant period to enable reassurance as to lawfulness, or findings as to any unlawful practices, to be reached as the case may be.

The Chief Constable is ultimately accountable for sensitive information made available to the reviewer, in ensuring that disclosure contrary to the wider public interest is not made. Whilst there is a public interest in exposing wrongdoing, that may be outweighed by other public interests such as national security and the prevention of crime. The Chief Constable has to be responsible for making that judgement but has indicated that he is committed to maximising openness. The reviewer will actively press for that in relation to any findings, which may include proposing gists or redactions that serve that purpose.

There is no set time limit for the review, but both the reviewer and the Chief Constable are keen for it to proceed as rapidly as possible, consistent with ensuring that it is thorough and in a position to reach secure conclusions. The Call for Evidence period ends on 18 October 2024, and an update will be provided shortly after then as to the likely timescales for the review, leading to its conclusion. It is currently expected and intended the review should report well within a year of the terms of reference having been agreed (14 June 2024).

Deadline for evidence (as extended): the deadline for response to this call for evidence is extended (from 5pm on Friday 18 October 2024) to 5pm on Friday 1 November 2024.

Please email the reviewer at [email protected]