UK

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 14° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Prison or death: the choice facing editor with a hotline to the Real IRA

Journalist tells court she fears for her life if she is forced to hand over information about paramilitaries

By David McKittrick in Belfast

Suzanne Breen, centre, and the editor of the Sunday Tribune, Noirin Hegarty, at Laganside Courts in Belfast

PA

Suzanne Breen, centre, and the editor of the Sunday Tribune, Noirin Hegarty, at Laganside Courts in Belfast

A journalist told a court yesterday that she faced being assassinated by republican terrorists if she complied with a police demand to hand over notes which could identify members of the Real IRA.

Suzanne Breen, the Belfast-based northern editor of the Sunday Tribune, received the Real IRA claim of responsibility for the murders of Sappers Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar, who were killed at the gates of Massereene barracks in Antrim on 7 March. She later conducted an interview with a member of the group.

Police are demanding under the Prevention of Terrorism Act that she hand over her computer, telephones, notes and any other material relating to two stories she wrote about the Real IRA in the wake of the killings.

If the court rules that she must hand over the notes and she refuses, she faces being sent to prison for five years.

Ms Breen told the Belfast Recorders Court that the dissident republicans would regard any co-operation by her as an "act of collaboration" with British forces. Her legal team said her right to life under the European Convention on Human Rights had to be respected.

She said the Real IRA was "more than capable" of murdering her and her family if she co-operated. She said a contact connected to the Real IRA had told her: "You know what co-operation with the PSNI means."

She said the message could only represent a death threat to her and her family and she was not prepared "to place my life at risk and that of my 14-month-old child and my partner".

In an article, Ms Breen said: "I face up to five years imprisonment for not complying with police demands. I believe the PSNI's action is politically motivated. The force is under huge pressure to be seen to be doing something post-Massereene. It's much easier to go after the messenger than those behind the message. Another objective could be to discourage other journalists from covering controversial stories and interviewing republican dissidents." Ms Breen told the court that the National Union of Journalists code of conduct made it clear that confidentiality for sources should always be protected. "Our job is to gather information and put it in the public domain," she said.

A campaign in support of her refusal to hand over material has grown in recent weeks with hundreds of journalists, academics and figures in the arts signing a petition organised by the National Union of Journalists.

Prominent journalists including the former Mirror editor Roy Greenslade, BBC Panorama's John Ware and the Sunday Times journalist Liam Clarke have given evidence for Ms Breen.

Ms Breen's case has wider ramifications for press freedom. Amnesty International has written to the Northern Ireland Secretary, Shaun Woodward, expressing "serious concerns" about the case, which it said highlighted the risks to investigative journalism.

Patrick Corrigan, Amnesty's Northern Ireland director, said: "There are concerns here about possible violation of Suzanne Breen's human rights. By using anti-terrorism legislation and the use of secret evidence, the government has deprived her of the right to challenge evidence used against her."

Judge Tom Burgess, the Recorder for Belfast, is to deliver his ruling next week. Colin Duffy, a dissident republican from Lurgan, Co Armagh, has been charged with killing the two soldiers.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

'Tis ever the Case, and has ever been the Case?
[info]amanfrommars wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 07:06 am (UTC)
With that tale and Mr Ian Paisley Jnr's contempt of court performance also being played out, is the Law and Justice being shown to be an Ass ....... and a Subjective Flexible Tool for whoever can Use it ... and Abuse it.

Having one rule for them, and another rule for us, is the Death of the System though, is it not, and it will be interesting to read of the precedents which may be set as the Media Players in the Charade dodge telling what they know happened for speculation on what may have happened.

Which is a Crazy State of Affairs which would be Instrumentally Supportive of Anarchy and Terrorism.

J'accuse.
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 08:49 am (UTC)
A journalist should have the right to protect their sources but at the same time if she is only being silent because of fear of being murdered by a Mafia-styled organization then perhaps she should be given sufficient protection so that she can share information, after all it seems she had been used by the "Real" IRA to publicise themselves. It is pretty shameful that organized crime like this can exist in the UK.
[info]_fingercuffs_ wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 11:52 am (UTC)
I agree; surely she could be offered the option of protective custody? I think that the people of Northern Ireland and the familes of the those murdered have a guenuine vested interest in bringing this information to light IF it is only only available evidence which could secure a convinction.
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 06:38 pm (UTC)
And what do you think protective custody will do?

Go watch the film 50 Dead Men and see what British "protection" does for those it gets help from, this woman has very real reason to be fearful.

My late mother was a codetaker for the Times for many years and it puts the whole family under the spotlight, especially when those giving the codes exhibit a great intelligence network, it all comes down to the fact that the British government and the Provos are still playing cowboys and indians and never mind the human cost.
Protective custody
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Saturday, 13 June 2009 at 02:00 am (UTC)
But if people do want to stand up we should give them all the help we can. Unless we remove these people from the streets they will be free to bully their way around exploit the newspapers, kill who they want. Living in fear to organized crime only makes it grow stronger.
Prison or death
[info]cowardlybeeb wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 08:58 am (UTC)
This has nothing to do with freedom of the press, this is about a citizen of the UK doing her civic duty and helping the police bring murderers to justice. This isn't a government department trying to find the name of a whistle blower this is information about people who are quite clearly guilty. The courts should issue a warrant and the police should seize what they need and take the issue out of her hands.

Like many journalists she is making a living out of reporting the death and misery of others but now the same has been brought to her door, by her own actions, we are supposed to treat her differently. If these people aren't jailed they will most likely kill again, perhaps another Omagh and if that happens the police will be lambasted for inactivity.

The press are quick to shout about the double standards of others but they are quiet when it comes to their own kind. This woman took a 'sexy' story onboard to help make a name for herself and now it has come back to bite her, she brought this on her own head.
Re: Prison or death
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 01:34 pm (UTC)
Agreed, either Breen should had over the information or go to jail. Weak excuses, such as source protection, shoul not be used hamper brining criminals to justice.
Re: Prison or death
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Saturday, 13 June 2009 at 02:10 am (UTC)
I initially thought that, but it does not necessarily state that it was at her instigation - they contacted her. I don't think it is a weak excuse, the IRA are a pretty nasty bunch still - ignore what that beardy prick Jerry Adams tells you - and they probably would be quite happy to murder this woman, so she has a right to be afraid. Personally, if I was her I'd tell them all I know and go and live in England where the IRA find it less hard to use their Mafia tactics.
Funny isn't it how Western Europe's two Catholic countries have this kind of sick organized crime? Perhaps the Pope forgot to tell them it is not nice to kill people for money?
I support Ms. Breen
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 09:37 am (UTC)
Ms. Breen is one of the most courageous investigative journalists in Ireland, who goes where nobody else would dare to go, in the interests of finding out the truth. Her work has been of great service to everyone and like all journalists everywhere, she should refuse to reveal her sources.

Real IRA or no Real IRA, that is a universal principle upheld by all journalists and I hope all journalists, via their professional bodies, will support Ms. Breen in the stand she is taking.
Re: I support Ms. Breen
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 02:07 pm (UTC)
If the principle of journalism is to protect your source from prosecution to ensure you get more stories then journalism has become corrupt beyond redemption.
[info]tibtib123 wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 09:44 am (UTC)
For the sake of the people who died she should hand over the information!
A risk worth taking
[info]civodul71 wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 10:16 am (UTC)
A journalist must protects its sources. That is a principle that allows them to do efficient reporting by setting up a trusting relationship between journalist and source. That allows journalist to break stories like the Watergate scandal, the current expense row, etc. Ultimately it protects us and our liberties in a democratic society.
But it is subject to being abused. It is a risk worth taking.

What I cannot understand is the stand taken by this particular journalist, Suzanne Breen: "I cannot comply with police demands that I give away my source for fear of death to me and my family".
Does that mean that if she did not fear for herself and her family she would give away her notes?

She should have said: "I won't give away my notes, because I must protect my sources", full stop. And go to jail if need be. It is unfortunate she did not and may, indeed, put her and her family at risk if the criminals see her as weak, and half-willing to denounce them.

About bringing the criminals to justice, it is the police's job, and they have means to solve crime without pressuring a journalist. Use of informants, surveillance etc. Let's hope that they do succeed, using legal means and not by threatening our liberty of being informed.
What about the rights of those murdered by the terrorists?
[info]arrancsearch wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 11:13 am (UTC)
Mrs Breem claims the "PSNI's action is politically motivated"!!! What complete and utter rubbish. The police service is motivated with catching the murderers of the two soldiers. There is alot in this piece about Ms Breem's human rights, perhaps she should be invited to consider the human rights of the 2 soldiers that were murdered or the rights of their familes that their sons killers are brought to justice.
Re: What about the rights of those murdered by the terrorists?
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 06:47 pm (UTC)
And what of those murders committed by forces there? Special forces executions, special branch and MI5 ops, people killed without sanction or legal remit by British placed moles and agent provocateurs?

They may well be looking to solve murders here but it is very, very selective with many deaths still being blind-eyed by the police over there because they know who did it...
A third murder to solve two murders
[info]akakis wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 11:14 am (UTC)
To force Ms Breen to disclose her source of information is to give the LRA a permit to commit a third murder in a futile effort to solve the first two. The court should not sanction it.
Re: A third murder to solve two murders
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 02:05 pm (UTC)
No it will still be illegal to murder someone to protect yourself even if the court orders Breen to reveal her sources.
A total farce
[info]brinksman wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 12:08 pm (UTC)
so-called justice in the north of Ireland has always been shadowy at best. When cops and British soldiers murdered numerous Nationalists and Catholics, the same law went into hiding. But when it comes to a journalist withholding the name of her source, all hell breaks loose. It's fooling no one. What a farce.
www.millarcrime.com
Re: A total farce
[info]arrancsearch wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 01:50 pm (UTC)
I think you'll find the main people responsible for murdering anyone in NI was and still is the IRA regardless of what letter they happen to have in front these days. PIRA, RIRA, CIRA still the same scum underneath
real IRA should get real
[info]lasvegasrich wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 03:51 pm (UTC)
You continue fighting when there is some chance of success. There is no chance, none, that the Real IRA will succeed in it's goals. Time for it's members to stand down, and get on with their lives. Suzanne Breen is between a rock and a hard place, but the person who murdered Sappers Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimcar should be brought to justice. Possibly Ms. Breen could be relocated, with any members of her family who want to join her, to Canada or Australia.
Blaire did not raise an eyebrow, he was sleeping fast in the drunk state like the Aladdin finding th
[info]famulla wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 06:30 pm (UTC)
"I face up to five years imprisonment for not complying with police demands. I believe the PSNI's action is politically motivated.
When police ask you, ?You have to repot every morning before you wake and every night before you sleep. ? You better do not sleep. Heard of the bank thieves who were lifted in the middle of the night taken to USA and Tony Blaire did not raise an eyebrow, he was sleeping fast in the drunk state like the Aladdin finding the treasures.
Do you expect to come and bail you out from this mess? No madam I am afraid of the Police. Did you see how they kicked the man in the street and he died on the day there was a small meeting when many broke the glass of RBS and police started the combing the streets hitting all with the truncheons right left and on heads. I was lucky I got this on the brain.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla


Should Know Better
[info]grahammontreal wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 08:16 pm (UTC)
Ms. Breen's decision to not collaborate with the PSNI on the grounds that it would endanger the lives of her 14 month year old child and her partner are valid but selfish.

As a journalist/editor Ms. Breen obviously knew about the possible ramifications of conducting an interview with the terrorist(s). To use her life and the life of her family as justification for remaining silent "after-the-fact" peverts justice in the name of publishing a good story.

To be quite honest, it is Ms. Breen her self who endangered her family by pursuing the story, then publishing the story, then remaining silent. Too often journalists blur the line between journalism and crime solving. This is another example.

The facts should be released and the suspects tried with the utmost concern for Ms. Breen and her family.
Graham, Montreal, Canada

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date