PSNI inspector illegally accessed file involving family members, court hears

A SERVING PSNI Inspector is to appeal a conviction for accessing a police file without authorisation after a contest at Dungannon Magistrates Court.

While Sean Farrell (44), with a default PSNI address, accepted viewing the data, he insisted it was for lawful reasons.

An in-service vetting process discovered he had accessed a file involving his family members for eight minutes on June 17, 2012.

Inspector Farrell told the court he joined the PSNI in 2005 knowing it would mean ostracization from his family, but, “It was my vocation. I had to make sacrifices. I left behind my family and friends. That was my choice. For the first five years I had no contact with any family at all. I knew the risks I’d be taking and the upheaval I would bring to my life, but it was what I wanted to do.”

After the death of a relative, however, Inspector Farrell began gradually rebuilding family relationships.

During this, a domestic incident occurred involving extended family in the course of which a person, disclosed the defendant was a police officer, “in a public environment, to all and sundry”.

This resulted in a safety assessment, but risk was classified as low and no further action was taken.

Inspector Farrell wanted to continue rebuilding family relationships but was concerned the incident may impact upon him and decided to look at the case details on the PSNI system.

He explained, “I’d spent years entirely dedicated to my profession. I sacrificed normal relationships and friends.

“I was putting myself in a circumstance where I knew a threat had been made which could have become real. I had to make a decision and to do that I needed information.

“I had to consider my personal safety… It was done for what I believe were lawful purposes. I did not disclose the information to anyone else.”

During cross-examination, the prosecution acknowledged the family upset Inspector Farrell suffered by joining the PSNI, but added, “I have to take emotion out of this and cut to the chase. It was a conflict of interest and you knew that.”

The inspector replied, “In hindsight, I was naive. I was just trying to do the best I could for my job.”

He accepted “looking at a fair bit of detail” including the case outline, interview content and recommendations around whether or not to prosecute.

When the prosecution asked the relevance of this, Inspector Farrell replied, “It was relevant to me and how this affects me professionally. The information was accessed, in my belief, for lawful purposes… In my circumstances and where I was then, my primary concerns were around policing.”

Judge Mullan enquired why he hadn’t explained the situation to another officer, to which Inspector Farrell said, “I had difficulties with my supervisor. If I couldn’t go to them, where could I go?

“This had implications on my profession. I was trying to separate personal from professional. I was creating a space to allow me to make an informed decision around whether reparation with my family would be detrimental to myself.”

He also said at that time, “A matter involving senior officers was being investigated. I had very little faith in them… The outcome of a disciplinary investigation was part of the reason there is no Omagh PSNI Crime Team anymore.”

Describing the case as “unfortunate and difficult”, Judge Mullan found Inspector Farrell guilty.

Imposing a fine of £500, he expressed sympathy with him around the family difficulties he has experienced by joining the PSNI, but added the matter was nonetheless “very serious”.

Immediately afterwards the defence informed the court the conviction would be appealed and this is expected to be heard in the coming months.