Investigative journalists and NUJ members Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey have expressed deep disappointment following a ruling from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which found it has no legal authority to sanction public bodies for deliberately withholding or delaying disclosure of key evidence.
The ruling follows the Tribunal’s December 2024 decision confirming that the journalists had been unlawfully surveilled by two UK police forces. Despite acknowledging that evidence was repeatedly and unjustifiably withheld—some disclosed only days before critical hearings—the IPT concluded it lacks statutory power to impose any form of sanction.However, the five-judge panel urged the government to consider addressing this gap in its powers, stating:
“We do not regard the outcome as entirely satisfactory… the facts of the present case illustrate why it would be helpful at least in principle for this Tribunal to have the power to award costs. No one has suggested that the power to award costs would be used so that costs orders were routinely made nor that the principle should be that ‘costs follow the event’. We see force in Mr Jaffey’s [journalists’ KC] submission that there is a need for the Tribunal to have the power to award costs, in particular against respondents, where there has been expenditure wasted as a result of their conduct and where, in particular, orders of the Tribunal are persistently breached. But, as we have explained above, that will be a matter for the Secretary of State or for Parliament.”
Trevor Birney said: “This is a shocking conclusion. The Tribunal has effectively said that public bodies can behave badly—delay, obstruct, conceal—and face no consequence. That’s not justice; it’s a reward for wrongdoing.”
Barry McCaffrey added: “The Tribunal recognised the delays and failures in disclosure but effectively said its hands were tied. That leaves us with a system where transparency and accountability can be deliberately undermined without fear of reprisal.”
The journalists warned that the ruling risks eroding public confidence in legal safeguards and sets a dangerous precedent that could embolden further misconduct by public authorities. They reiterated their call for a full public inquiry into the unlawful surveillance and institutional failures surrounding their case.