Northern Ireland

Police 'keeping a lid' on Loughinisland material, High Court is told

Journalists Barry McCaffrey (left) and Trevor Birney outside the High Court following an earlier hearing. Picture by Mal McCann
Journalists Barry McCaffrey (left) and Trevor Birney outside the High Court following an earlier hearing. Picture by Mal McCann Journalists Barry McCaffrey (left) and Trevor Birney outside the High Court following an earlier hearing. Picture by Mal McCann

Police are attempting to "keep a lid" on material connected to the Loughinisland massacre, the High Court has heard.

Counsel for the makers of a film about the loyalist murders claimed redactions to documents which feature in a legal case are part of efforts to preserve secrecy.

Investigative journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey are challenging the validity of search warrants issued during an investigation into the suspected theft of confidential papers from the Police Ombudsman's Office.

Both men were arrested, questioned and released as part of raids on their homes and a business premises in Belfast last August.

Detectives from Durham Constabulary, supported by officers from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, carried out the operation.

Mr Birney and Mr McCaffrey were involved in a film which examined the killing of six Catholic men at Loughinisland, Co Down in June 1994.

UVF gunmen opened fire in a village pub as their victims watched a World Cup football match.

The journalists and Fine Point Films, the company behind the documentary No Stone Unturned, contend the warrants did not cover all of the material seized.

With their challenge set for a full hearing in May, lawyers were in court today to deal with issues over the level of redaction to documents and any so-called "collateral" use of the material beyond the case.

Peter Coll QC, for the two police forces, contended that a limited number of redactions to some of the material was necessary.

A gist of the information contained in those sections has been provided, judges were told.

The barrister indicated if that is not deemed satisfactory the court may have to make a decision.

Alternatively, an application could be made for a Public Interest Immunity Certificate to protect the redacted portions.

But Barry Macdonald QC, representing Fine Point Films, said police had set out reasons why they claim an entitlement to "preserve the secrecy of this material".

Stressing the need to deal with the issue, he added: "It seems like a continuation of this attempt to keep a lid on all this material."

Lord Justice Treacy, sitting with Mrs Justice Keegan, gave police a two-week period to finalise arguments about the redactions.

He listed the case for a further hearing next month.