IPT findings also show 2006 authorisations lacked explicit journalist status and the 2009 override to access all call data wasn’t properly justified by overriding public interest.

The ruling follows earlier IPT findings about other journalists and underscores the chilling effect of unlawful surveillance on press freedom and trust.

In a landmark ruling, three Investigatory Powers Tribunal judges awarded journalist Vincent Kearney 10,000 in damages from both the PSNI and MI5 for illegal, intrusive surveillance tied to reporting, marking a major moment for press freedom in Northern Ireland.

The court deemed the surveillance illegal and disproportionate, violating privacy laws and the protection of confidential journalistic material, noting around 1,580 calls or texts were scrutinised in one operation.

Kearney testified to long-running attempts to identify his sources, including gathering data on his wife and children, a breach that undermined promises to protect confidential sources.

The IPT’s ruling flags numerous interferences over years and finds that authorisations to access communications lacked justification and proper balance with the protection of journalistic sources.

Earlier PSNI data-access applications spanning 2009–2012–2014 were unlawful for failing to assess overriding public interest and for intruding on confidential material, with evidence of inadequate legal testing in some cases.

The case amplifies broader concerns about how journalists are monitored by law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the public-interest reporting landscape.

The IPT described the pursuit of sources as illegal, extending intrusion into Kearney’s personal life and into information about his wife, children, and even vehicle registrations.

MI5’s 2006 data requests did not identify Kearney as a journalist and failed to justify why data could not be obtained by other means or why interference with sources was needed.

BBC, RTÉ and other officials stressed the gravity of the findings, emphasizing that journalistic freedoms are essential to democracy and should be protected to maintain trust in public-interest journalism.

Judges highlighted that heightened protections for journalists serve the public interest by safeguarding the right to information and the ability to identify and protect sources.