Mitchell admits he ordered 40 phone tabs taps as Minister

FURTHER EVIDENCE of the extent of State phone tapping has emerged with confirmation by a former Minister for Justice, Mr Jim …

FURTHER EVIDENCE of the extent of State phone tapping has emerged with confirmation by a former Minister for Justice, Mr Jim Mitchell, that he authorised the monitoring of the telephones of about 40 people who might have acted as "potential intermediaries" in the Ben Dunne kidnapping in October 1991.

Following his demand yesterday for a Dail investigation into the tapping of the telephone of the journalist Vincent Browne, Mr Mitchell told The Irish Times that it was often found necessary to grant a warrant to monitor the phone of someone who was in no way suspected of wrongdoing.

This had been deemed necessary in the Dunne kidnapping and, as Minister, he had authorised the tapping of about 40 phones of persons who might have been approached by the abductors to act as ransom collectors.

Mr Browne has contradicted claims by Mr Mitchell and the Department of Justice that a £91,000 settlement for the tapping of his telephone over eight years, was agreed under the last government. Following claims by a Department spokeswoman that the terms of the deal "were agreed in November 1994 and finalised by the present Minister", Mr Browne said that there had been "no agreement with the previous government".

READ MORE

"Negotiations began under the previous government, but the agreement was reached with this one", Mr Browne added.

He also said that, as far as he was concerned, the Government had been freed from any undertaking of confidentiality and could divulge any information it had concerning the monitoring of his telephone. "But, of course, I will feel free to respond", he added.

The Minister for Justice, Mrs Owen, is awaiting legal advice on how to proceed after Mr Browne gave some details on the Late Late Show on March 21st about the nature of the tapping of his phone between February 1975 and February 1983. It is unlikely that the Government will take any action, sources said last night.

Mr Browne obtained access to the 85 transcripts arising from the "capping and discovered that only four had any connection with subversive sources. The majority related to political issues.

Telephone surveillance guidelines permit it only if it is related to serious crime or subversion. Tapping for political purposes is prohibited.

The request is always initiated by the Garda Commissioner, who seeks Ministerial permission for a telephone intercept. Under normal procedure, senior civil servants in the Department of Justice liaise with the gardai in establishing the basis for the request. On establishment of such a need the Minister sanctions the tapping by way of a warrant and the actual monitoring is conducted by personnel from the Department of Communications. When a conversation has been intercepted, the tapes are passed to the gardai, who can print out transcripts.

As one of the Ministers who authorised the tapping of Mr Brownes phone, Mr Mitchell said that he had queried "the system, safeguards and practice". He had received assurances from the gardai and the Department that such surveillance was necessary.

Mr Mitchell added it was clear there was an abuse of the system in that personal conversations which had no connection with crime or subversion were transcribed.

Meanwhile, another former Minister for Justice, Mr Patrick Cooney, confirmed last night that arising from the Department's settlement with Mr Browne, he was pursuing his action against the State "for the vindication of my good name". Mr Cooney sought to be joined in the proceedings in order to exculpate himself from any wrongdoing in the phone tapping but, on learning of the £91,000 settlement, initiated an action against the State.

It is not known how Mr Cooney's action will be affected by the fact that, in the 1995 settlement, the Department of Justices insisted on destroying the transcripts of Mr Browne's conversations. At that time it was pointed out to the Chief State Solicitor by lawyers acting for Mr Browne that these transcripts could be material evidence in the cases taken Mr, Cooney. Their destruction could affect Mr Browne's ability to defend his good name in that action the lawyers claimed.