During proceedings at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in London, former detective Darren Ellis disclosed a concerning interaction with a senior officer from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). Ellis claimed that the officer warned him to exercise caution when dealing with members of the judiciary, barristers, and solicitors due to the perceived overrepresentation of Catholics in Northern Ireland’s legal system.
According to Ellis, the PSNI officer believed this religious demographic influenced court decisions, leading to what they described as “perverse decisions” in criminal justice processes. This revelation emerged as part of the tribunal’s investigation into the PSNI’s surveillance of two journalists, Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney.
Ellis’s involvement with the investigation into McCaffrey and Birney stemmed from their documentary on the 1994 Loughinisland massacre, in which six Catholic civilians were killed by loyalist paramilitaries. The documentary exposed the police’s failure to investigate the killings properly, which led to leaked information being used in their reporting.
Ellis was tasked with leading an inquiry into the source of the leaks, but his investigation became controversial. He was reportedly influenced by the senior PSNI officer’s views on the judiciary, which he later communicated to colleagues. Ellis’s email, outlining the officer’s perspective, highlighted the officer’s concerns over the influence of Catholics within the legal system.
Former Detective Reveals Controversial Claims of Sectarian Bias in Northern Ireland’s Judiciary
The case took a dramatic turn when Ellis criticized the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Declan Morgan. Morgan had ruled that the PSNI had unlawfully obtained warrants to arrest McCaffrey and Birney. Ellis, expressing his frustration, labeled the decision as an “absolute outrage” in an email to PSNI colleagues.
The email led to a reprimand, but Ellis defended his comments, explaining that he had been upset by the 24-hour deadline imposed on the PSNI to respond to the ruling, which he argued was too short a time frame. Ellis stated that, if given more time, he would have likely drafted a more measured response, but at the time, he felt compelled to express his anger.
Ellis’s conduct during the investigation was further questioned in relation to his attitude toward McCaffrey and Birney. He had objected to a photograph of MP Graham Morris with the two journalists, posted on Twitter, and had even requested that Durham Police investigate Morris for alleged “criminal conduct.” However, Durham Police concluded there was insufficient evidence to pursue the case.
Ellis’s emails to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, in which he accused McCaffrey and Birney of evading accountability and intimidating others, raised further concerns about his impartiality. He claimed that the journalists operated within a community where no one challenged them, describing their behavior as intimidating and corrupt.
In cross-examination, Stephen Toal, representing Birney, suggested that Ellis had lost his objectivity in the investigation. Toal highlighted Ellis’s connections to the Retired Officers Association, an organization that had grievances with the Police Ombudsman and was critical of the documentary.
These ties raised questions about Ellis’s impartiality, as it appeared that his investigation was influenced by personal biases against the journalists and legal professionals. Ellis denied these allegations, asserting that his views were based on his experience in law enforcement and that he had a right to express his opinions, even if they seemed harsh.
The issue of Ellis’s conduct reached a head when it was revealed that the PSNI had removed him from the investigation due to a loss of confidence in his ability to remain impartial. The PSNI did not disclose this decision to the tribunal until evidence was leaked to the press.
Jaffey, representing McCaffrey, emphasized that Ellis’s personal grievances against the documentary and its makers had overshadowed his professional duties. The court criticized Ellis for attempting to have journalists’ lawyers disciplined and for pursuing vendettas against individuals who disagreed with him. His actions, which went beyond typical policing behavior, raised significant concerns about his integrity and professionalism.
In the final stages of the hearing, the court rejected Ellis’s claims regarding the Northern Ireland judiciary. Jaffey argued that Ellis’s accusations of sectarianism and bias within the courts were unfounded and dangerous. He pointed out that Ellis had attempted to justify his views by attributing them to a senior PSNI officer, but this context was insufficient to explain the severity of Ellis’s statements.
Jaffey characterized Ellis’s comments as a form of dangerous racism, particularly given the sensitive sectarian dynamics in Northern Ireland. The court was urged to consider the wider implications of such rhetoric in a politically charged environment where accusations of sectarianism could inflame existing tensions.
