Court Orders scandal over private X data set to Escalate

'An outrageous attack on press freedom'

Press Ombudsman Susan McKay: No Comment.

Press Council: No Comment.

NUJ (National Union of Journalists): No response.

Irish Council for Civil Liberties: No response.

A major scandal is brewing in Ireland following Tuesday’s revelation that Gardai sought secret access to journalists’ private data. The social media network X (formerly Twitter) revealed that Gardai obtained court orders to access Irish users’ private messages. A total of ten Irish accounts were targeted, including Gript Media, via order of the District Court. X owned by Elon Musk, refused to comply.

Carol Nolan TD confirmed to this Substack that she will pursue the matter with Garda Commissioner Drew Harris and Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan.

Deputy Nolan, who plans to raise the matter in the Dáil, views the development as a ‘an apparent re-purposing of legislation originally designed to combat internal terrorism.’

“I am more than concerned about the apparent re-purposing of legislation originally designed to combat internal terrorism to enable it to be applied to a media outlet in Ireland,” she said.

“It is even more troubling that the only media outlet that appears to have been targeted is one renowned for its unwillingness to toe the party line in terms of the official narrative.”

The dates set out on the court order issued to X in relation to Gript pertain to it’s coverage of a protest over the location of an IPAS Centre in Newtownmountkennedy. The stand-off descended into chaos after Riot Police baton charged protestors to clear the area. Gript reporter Fatima Gunning was pepper-sprayed in the face during the incident. Six people were arrested.

“Policing in Ireland operates on the model of community consent. Activities like those raised in recent days can only undermine that model by reducing public and media trust,” Deputy Nolan said.

In the aftermath of the release of a public statement issued by Gript at lunchtime on Tuesday, a number of other X accounts revealed that they too had been subject to secret court orders. Notably, none of the accounts were notified of the attempt to gain access to their private data by Gardai. The issue only came to light through a notification email sent to the affected X accounts. Gript received their notification on Friday February 14.

To date, the known X accounts affected include:

Gript Media - News site covering immigration as a special interest, 96,000 followers

Irish Inquiry - Alternative news site focused on immigration, 45,500 followers

Michael O’Keeffe - Private individual posting immigration content, 182,000 followers

Philip Dwyer - Citizen journalist, 29,000 followers

Jana Lunden - Founder of the Natural Women’s Council. Vocal on immigration and the protection of women and children, 17,500 followers

Terry K - Private individual posting content on immigration, 9,600 followers

‘European Dream’ - Anonymous account associated with a previous Twitter profile targeted by Gardai. Self described on X as a 28 year old Dubliner and proud Irish patriot who believes in national sovereignty and strong borders, 2,170 followers.

‘Amy’ - X Account Bio states ‘Islam is not welcome in Ireland’, 3,600 followers.

All of these accounts appear to have been targeted because they either documented or posted footage of clashes between protestors and police over the opening of accommodation centres for asylum seekers, specifically at Newtownmountkennedy and Coolock.

Notably, the court orders issued to X in relation to Jana Lunden and the Irish Inquiry, were secured on Tuesday November 12 2024. The 33rd Dail was dissolved the previous Friday, November 8. In a statement, Ms Lunden said she is taking legal advice on the matter.

Here is what Gript Editor John McGuirk had to say on the matter:

“An Garda Síochána, a police force in a country that claims to protect press freedom, secured a secret court order granting them access to a media organisation’s private communications.

“Communications which, if exposed, could have jeopardised journalistic sources – with their only justification being an argument that reporting on a public event meant it was reasonable to believe we must hold additional material valuable to an investigation.

“And the judge agreed. Using a law originally intended to give An Garda Síochána the power to pursue investigations into money launderers, drug traffickers and terrorist financiers”

Notifying the Irish accounts involved, X sent an email with copies of the court documents attached. The company blocked out the names of the Gardai and Judiciary involved to protect their privacy.

Is it reasonable to surmise that members of An Garda Siochana only resorted to obtaining a court order (leaving a paper trail) having attempted other means to obtain the data they sought? The question arises then, which other social media sites and phone services were approached by Gardai for private users information? And did sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok and phone service operators handover data without users’ knowledge or permission?

We know that during covid lockdowns, phone providers were sharing users’ location data.

We know that Helen McEntee made provision for this during her tenure as Justice Minister. McEntee obtained a High Court order requiring telecommunications service providers to retain certain information — including user, traffic and location data — for a period of 12 months.

At the time, Digital Rights Ireland expressed concern over the move.

"The theory is that this can be done on national security grounds which could include organised crime at a certain level or smuggling linked to dissidents,” said Digital Rights Ireland chairman TJ McIntyre told the Irish Examiner.

"But people recognise that this is very sensitive and how it can be abused to spy on certain people."

"In Ireland, there is an attitude that if data was ever accessible, it should be always that way. There's an element of using it as a cheat code in policing because you can go back retrospectively instead of obtaining information in real-time through police work,” he said.

Daily Mail Feb 19 2025

A Garda spokesman confirmed the court order measures to the Daily Mail.

“In order to vindicate the rights of potential victims of crime including Gardai who have been verbally and physically assaulted, An Garda Siochana has a positive obligation to obtain all available evidence relating to particular incidents. At times, such evidence is procured on foot of court orders being issued by the Courts to An Garda Siochana.”

This reply prompts the question, by what mechanism can ordinary citizens vindicate their right to live in a safe environment? Who will protect ordinary residents of Irish communities who have been subject to riot police tactics such as pepper spray, while exercising their constitutional right to protest?

The media is the instrument upon which citizens previously relied to hold power to account, but that institution has all but collapsed in the face of mass immigration into Ireland. Instead, local concerns over whether background checks on immigrants who entered the State illegally, were dismissed as ‘far right’ and ‘racist’.

The day after X revealed the court order to Gript, an asylum seeker living in an IPAS centre in Ballyogan went clubbing in Dublin City Centre. Quaham Babatunde was fatally stabbed later that night.

It was subsequently revealed, first by Irish contributors on X and later in a report by Paul Healy in the Irish Mirror, that Babatunde had previously been an asylum seeker in Italy, where he faced charges of rape. He had been scheduled for deportation back to Nigeria. Thus, the repeated and vocal concerns of local communities concerning vetting are fully vindicated.

The court orders issued to X pertain to Section 63 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act, an order to make material available.

Here’s the full wording:

63.—(1) A member of the Garda Síochána may, for the purpose of an investigation into drug trafficking or an offence under section 31 of this Act or an investigation into whether a person has benefited from drug trafficking or an offence in respect of which a confiscation order might be made under section 9 of this Act, apply to a judge of the District Court for an order under subsection (2) of this section in relation to any particular material or material of a particular description.

The Irish Daily Mail reported the Gript aspect of the story on Wednesday. To date there has been no other media coverage of the issue, besides a question put by Gavin Reilly of Virgin Media’s Tonight Show to Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan on Tuesday night.

“If it’s an application to the district court there is the system there of judicial oversight. There’s obviously a provision in the legislation that permits the gardaí to make that application,” the Minister said.

“If the court don’t think it is appropriate, it won’t be granted. I think if you look at our legal system and the jurisprudence of the courts, journalists’ sources are protected.”

That may be the case in theory, but if Gardai are granted permission to read people’s private messages, particularly those of media outlets, how exactly are their sources protected?

How then, can ordinary citizens speak to journalists in good faith? This is surely a dangerous precedent that the entire Irish media should be extremely concerned about?

Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín described the incident as an ‘outrageous attack on press freedom’.

“Press freedom is a fundamental foundation of a democracy. The Minister for Justice has major questions to answer as to how this could happen,” he said.

Independent Ireland Chairman Ken O’Flynn, Independent TD Mattie McGrath, and Senator Sharon Keogan have voiced their concerns over press freedom in relation to the incident.

Carol Nolan TD is to raise urgent Parliamentary Questions on the matter.

“It reminds me of the state-sponsored Kinzen episode when some of us spoke up in defiance of the official narrative during Covid-19. Although this appears far more serious,” she said.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties issued no response to a request for comment from this Substack.

A Department of Media spokesperson told the Mail ‘it would not be appropriate to comment as the investigation may be ongoing.’

Meanwhile, the government is drafting legislation for the implementation of the controversial EU Migration and Asylum Pact as part of its Spring 2025 programme.

Here’s how the EU Commission reported Ireland’s ‘official opt-in’ to the Pact last July:

“The European Commission welcomes Ireland’s official opt-in to the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which highlights the country’s willingness to contribute and play and active role in the common EU migration and asylum policy.”

In the same report, the Commission pointed out that Ireland had no automatic obligation to participate in a common asylum policy.

“There is no automatic obligation for Ireland to participate in a common asylum policy, as it has an opt-in or opt-out clause on individual proposals in the areas of freedom, security and justice, through the EU Treaty of Lisbon.”

Ireland voted to reject the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum in June 2008. However, some 20 per cent of the electorate had changed their mind by the time the second Lisbon Vote was passed in October 2009.

According to Barrister Tracey O’Mahony, the Migration pact ‘will see Ireland having to accept an uncapped number of asylum seekers per annum (aka economic migrants) or pay a financial penalty of €20,000 per person.’

In an editorial last Sunday, the Irish Times argued the EU’s middle ground parties must take control of the narrative on migration:

“The economic challenges facing the EU are formidable, including declining populations in many big member states. The EU needs migration. Politicians of the centre need to persuade the electorates that a fair and efficient system can emerge.”

Readers and the general public might be confused as to the purpose of the Pact. If it is to facilitate an economic need, why does the word Asylum appear in the title? Is there a deliberate obfuscation designed to confuse or manipulate host country populations?

It appears the Irish media either can not or will not cover these issues in a manner that serves the Irish people. But once the matter is raised in the Dail, the issue becomes more difficult to avoid, particularly given Ireland’s role in implementing the Digital Services Act on behalf of the European Commission.

While we are waiting, let’s look back to the 1980’s, when a previous State effort to spy on journalists backfired. The debacle took a decade to fully play out.

RTE Archives image

The infamous Phone Tapping Scandal of the 1980’s involved Irish Independent journalist Bruce Arnold and Sunday Press journalist Geraldine Kennedy (who later become Editor of the Irish Times). Their private phone conversations were illegally monitored following an order signed by Minister for Justice Sean Doherty (FF) in 1982.

Minister Doherty defended the action, saying he ordered it because he was concerned that national security was being endangered by the leaking of confidential government papers. He wanted to know who was leaking the documents to the press.

The two journalists took a legal case, which they won in 1987. The President of the High Court Mr Justice Hamilton ruled that the journalists’ constitutional rights had been infringed by the phone tapping.

In 1992, the scandal toppled a Taoiseach, after Doherty said he provided the transcripts to Taoiseach Charles Haughey, who rejected the allegation. Progressive Democrats Leader Des O’Malley said the credibility of his party’s coalition government with Fianna Fail was under threat over the issue and Haughey was forced to resign to avoid a general election.

Here’s what Geraldine Kennedy outside the courthouse after winning the case.

“I took this case to get an independent authority above politics to state whether the tapping of my phone was right or wrong. I was in the position where one government (FF) stated it was alright to tap my telephone in my circumstances. The present government said it was wrong (FG). I wanted to get an independent judgement and I am very happy that I got it.”

The journalists shared £50,000 in compensation.

*Thanks to those that support my work: Make a one off donation