Category Archives: Gangland

Gangsters with Blackberry’s & the Upsurge in “Intelligence Led” Busts

A sensational story about the criminal use of encryption appeared across social media this week like it was a scoop. It wasn’t. But that’s the way it was portrayed.

For the uninformed it played directly into the narrative that encryption is bad and overwhelmingly used by those withquestionable motives or downright evil intentions.

So What Happened?

The headlines varied but basically Vincent Ramos the boss of Phantom Secure, a company whose website declares that it supplies “THE WORLDS MOST TRUSTED COMMUNICATION SERVICE” was arrested in California.

The company supplies or supplied a modded and allegedly zero knowledge handset which is or was it claimed “Simple, effective and easy to use while highly secure, … recognized by government agencies and cyber experts as “Uncrackable” “.

All utter rubbish of course but if you are selling a high performance sports car to a guy who struggles with a gear change on a bicycle then who is to contradict you?

Imagine! Organised crime were using encrypted phones to communicate and those encrypted phones were being supplied by commercial outfits who knew.

Scoop? No.

“Buyer Beware” — What Did Phantom Secure Sell?


The sales bumf declared that the “Classic Phantom Secure Encrypted BlackBerry Device”, apparently proven “year after year”, (by whom is unstated) was light weight and easy to use and provided end to end encrypted messaging, in theory. The package included:

  1. Modified and Locked Down Device
  2. Secure Encrypted Device to Device Encrypted Messaging
  3. Anonymous Communication
  4. International Roaming
  5. 6 months Subscription Included

The “Phantom Secure Android Edition” made the laughable statement that it provided unmatched secure enterprise mobility from BlackBerry and the “best at rest” security on an Android KNOX device, which communicated over the Phantom Secure service.

Summarising, the company promised “totally anonymous, device-to-device encrypted communications, brought to you by a globally trusted and recognized secure communications service.

The problem with that is that it was not brought to the companies customers by anything approaching a globally trusted and recognized secure communications service because it was hosted on Blackberry Enterprise Service servers.

Blackberry executive chairman and chief executive officer John Chen recently said “Today’s encryption has got to the point where it’s rather difficult, even for ourselves, to break it, to break our own encryption… it’s not an easily breakable thing. We will only attempt to do that if we have the right court order. The fact that we will honor the court order doesn’t imply we could actually get it done.

This Phantom Secure Android version included:

  1. Modified and Locked Down Device
  2. Secure Encrypted Device to Device Encrypted Messaging
  3. Anonymous Communication
  4. KNOX hardware and software integrated device security
  5. Prive Encrypted Chat
  6. Compatible messaging with BB7 Devices
  7. International Roaming
  8. 6 months Subscription Included

Worthless Disclaimers & Hollow Promises

Phantom Secure, and many like them, take care to make various disclaimers which they seem to think are a get out of jail freecard and state in their “Legal Compliance” section that:

We are a law-abiding company that is permitted to deliver encrypted communication services to our clients in order for them to protect their communications, without having the ability to decrypt their communications.”

The statement in no way ensures that these kind of suppliers cannot be indicted on charges. What it does do is give the impression to prospective customers that the company can in some way guarantee that even in the face of a warrant they do not possess the ability to compromise the historic or future communications of their customer base either intentionally or unintentionally.

But in the case of Blackberry that is just not true. It is public knowledge since 2016 that Operation Clemenza by the RCMP allowed Canadian investigators to access consumer-grade phones from Blackberry where the decryption key is in the company’s (RIM) possession.

BlackBerry, however, also offers the option to run their BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES) which allows clients to run their own network of phones, and keep possession of their own decryption key. And this is what Phantom Secure were doing but as far back as January 2016 Dutch police said that they were able to read encrypted messages sent on the custom, security-focused BlackBerry devices.

Also in December 2015 in the article “The Encryption Debate: a Way Forward,” on the official Blackberry blog INSIDE Blackberry the company wrote that “privacy and security form the crux of everything we do. However,our privacy commitmentdoes not extend to criminals.”

But isn’t criminality established after due process has taken place? Warrants do not prove criminality even if there is probable cause? Are RIM Blackberry qualified to make the distinctions?

Regardless they sold their BES products based on the claim that they would never be called upon to make the distinction because they had designed a product that was totally secure.

There are products which can guarantee this and even in the face of warrants are unable to provide logs, metadata, or encryption keys. But BES cannot. There lies one of the many significant problems that Mr. Ramos faces.

The disclaimer continues …

“Our service does not require personal information and has no back doors. In providing such a service we do understand that there will be a very small number of people that may use our service to do activities we do not support. We do not condone the use of our service for any type of illegal activities and if known we will terminate the use of our service without notice.”

“Considering this, requests for the contents of communications may arise from government agencies, which would require a valid search warrant from an agency with proper jurisdiction over Phantom Secure.”

“However, our response to such requests will be the content and identity of our clients are not stored on our server and that the content is encrypted data, which is indecipherable.”

“Our company was founded as a means to provide businesses and people the opportunity to communicate in private in this modern technological age. Unfortunately there will be people that will use this technology for acts we do not condone but this should not be the reason why our universal human right to privacy should be taken away.

Mr. Ramos & Explaining the Unexplainable

The very unlucky or very silly Mr. Ramos, depending on which way you look at it, has now been charged with racketeering activity involving gambling, money laundering, and drug trafficking. I hope Mr. Ramos enjoyed the spoils while he could because he is in a very tight spot now, one way or the other.

US authorities have argued that Phantom Secure operated explicitly to enable organised crime groups to evade detection while planning major crimes. Phantom allegedly built an international client base of criminals by taking BlackBerry devices, stripping out the camera, microphone, GPS navigation and other features, and installing encryption software, making them difficult for law enforcement to crack. He was arrested in California, amid claims that his firms products’ were allegedly linked to Australian murders and drug trafficking.” [This extract is from “Phantom Secure boss arrested in US, amid products’ suspected links to Australian murders” By Dan Oakes, ABC Australia, Monday 12th March 2018]

Think about that statement “Making them difficult for law enforcement to crack.”. Hmmmm. If Mr. Ramos makes bail I predict that one of the first questions that he will be asked by some of his more colourful customers is how exactly does that statement sit with the claims the company made on their website. At best he over-promised and under-delivered. [For posterity I have preserved the Phantom Secure website before it inevitably goes dark.]

These dog and bones went for between USD1500–USD2000 a piece with 6 months shelf life and Phantom Secure had 20k subscribers. Do the figures! If you lost one then you had to buy a new one, no discounts.

Isn’t it amazing that a market segment of normally paranoid individuals are willing to buy an expensive technology that they do not understand from a supplier that they do not know and then proceed to drop all normal “opsec”, if you could call it that, and openly plan the spectaculars that led to these arrests.

The Recent Upsurge in Success for “Intelligence Led” Operations

In the fullness of time it will be very interesting to see how the evidence to construct this indictment was acquired, what paper trail was left by the company showing their modus operandi, the promises versus the actual reality of what the company claimed it could deliver, and whether these claims as and of themselves are seen by the Courts as a marketing tool solely intended to appeal specifically to a certain base, namely those with criminal intentions, and how that can be proven.

The story also raises interesting questions on a topic that I have been researching now for some time – parallel construction. Over the last three years there has been a staggering increase in seizures of drug shipments and the foiling of multiple gangland assassinations attributed to “intelligence led” operations.

Since the late noughties Blackberry handsets have been the comms weapon of choice for organised crime even though they have been widely discredited. There is a school of thought that outfits such as Phantom Secure have been tolerated and let exist by law enforcement because they were such a rich source of warrantless intel.

But now that even the most clueless crims are moving away from the platform it seems that it has been decided that it is time to bring in all the “CEO’s” of these secure comms companies. Their usefulness has been exhausted.

Some of the coverage in recent days has claimed that Ramos is co-operating. My guess is that LE wish to use his arrest to turn him into a “co-operating witness” and as such provide them with what looks like legal access to the Phantom Secureservers.

In that way all of that juicy warrantless surveillance can be seen to have been legitimately obtained intelligence and the clientbase, big fish and small, can be hoovered up en-masse or turned into assets.

As for the stuff that has gone before — well, it didn’t become an issue at the trials so no need to revisit that. It was credited to HUMINT in the shape of informants who could not be named in order to protect their identity.

The Inevitability of Licensing

I have no particular insight into the innocence or guilt of Mr. Ramos in this case. I do not know whether he overtly solicited criminal clients in the full knowledge of their business and their need for secure comms in order to evade detection in a criminal enterprise.

What I do know is that if you are legally recorded saying:

“Hey man, I sell these phones that are bullet proof and can’t be hacked or eavesdropped (“even though that is not the case”) and I know you value your security and privacy because your foe is law enforcement and your trade is illegal and I can sell you these phones for $$$$’s and you can ply your trade without fear of discovery

….. then you are nicked mate.

Mr. Ramos is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. He is finished every which way he turns.

The movie Layer Cake has a rich seam of relevant content to illustrate my point. In that movie Colm Meaney explains to Daniel Craig’s character XXXX his Cornelian dilemma as a result of being present during an incident:

“Listen, son. Let me explain something to you. Freddie’s in intensive care with a bit of a brain haemorrhage. You were there at the scene. That’s called joint venture. Now, if Freddie dies, you’re either in the dock with Morty… …or you’re in the witness box putting him away. Think about that.

The outcome of this matter is likely to produce significant and wider repercussions for the providers of secure communications solutions in general.

This case and those to follow are a preparatory step for compulsory licensing for purveyors of private encryption systems. They offer an antidote to the privacy objections about backdoors and present a far more pragmatic solution to giving law enforcement access to encrypted communications than systems that are “thoughtfully design” as was recently and ridiculously suggested by FBI Director, Christopher Wray.

The provision of private secure comms solutions will evolve to the same standard of licensing as is applied to firearms sales. Such companies will be required to be licensed before offering the service and when selling licenses I guess that pre-qualification checks on the purchaser will be required too. Purchasing a license will probably be enough to claim “probable cause” under FISA rules in the US. It takes little enough justification to eavesdrop as it stands.

Undermining the Argument for Un-Compromised Encryption

The arguments in support of generally available un-compromised encryption services are devalued by the incorrect parallels that the opponents of encryption make between them and the Phantom Secure case.

It plays directly into the narrative that the host of encryption luddites in law enforcement, government, and the intelligence community peddle daily as they seek to justify back-dooring or banning encryption products.

Those who oppose encryption use illogical extrapolations when making their arguments — “the bad guy used encryption … therefore the crime was committed because of encryption”. They use the special case to undermine the general case.

The Phantom Secure case will be used as another example of why encryption is bad. But the Phantom Secure case is not about privacy or encryption rights or freedom of speech.

If there is even the slightest question that the provider of hardware, software, and any other “wares” knowingly supplies them for assisting the commission of an offence or even suspects that they will be used in one then it is aiding and abetting and all the other bits and pieces that have been included on Mr. Ramos’s much publicised indictment.

References and Bibliography



The Media, Crime, & Criminal Justice in Ireland

In 2017, in the Republic of Ireland, the relationship between the media, crime, and criminal justice is fundamentally different than what was the case a half century ago. A functioning independent media operating in the public interest and a transparent criminal justice system are notionally the cornerstones of an effective democracy.

Both should have clear demarcations on authority and demonstrable respect, without exception, for civil liberties. Both should respect “a social contract that sets out the expectations, the rights, and the responsibilities of all parts of society – individuals, institutions and government.” (Reference 1), the statute book and the constitution. A society “where Government works in the interest of all” (Reference 2)

The Dark Triad

The relationship between these elements has changed in recent history as a result of the normalisation of sensationalism in the media and an exaggeration by the media of the levels of serious domestic criminal activity.

Both of these phenomena have resulted in an erosion of civil liberties and a skewed public perception of the threat level that serious crime presents domestically. As a result bills have been proposed and laws passed that deliver disproportionate criminal justice powers to the State.

To a large degree the majority of the public are unaware of the potential pitfalls of this kind of legislation and have rather been led into a position of inertia by an irresponsible media.

“Influencing” Public Opinion

Public attitude to crime is substantially informed by the consumption of print, TV, radio and digital media and as “an issue of major public interest it is therefore covered extensively in the media.” (Reference 3)

Media coverage is a major influence on the public perception of crime and the administration of criminal justice.

The media affects public attitudes to different types of crime, to certain sectors of society, to the perception of the levels of criminal activity within society, to the expectation with respect to the burden of proof thats rests with the State in criminal trails, to the checks and balances that exist within the system, to the willingness of the public to surrender civil liberties in the face of alleged threats and “in the tabloid media in particular, it dominates and dictates the news agenda.” (Reference 4)

“The relationship between media presentations and crime is dependent on characteristics of the message and the audience.” (Heath and Gilbert (1996)). Chiricos et al (2000) finds that local and national news are related to fear of crime and have a direct effect on the willingness of constituents to consider a reduction in their personal freedoms in order to allow new legislation that more “effectively” combats the perceived threat.

The “Contract” Between The Media & The Public

The poor quality and reliability of output in certain sections of the media is detrimental to the effective administration of criminal justice and rather “the media should endeavour to ensure that stories of crime accurately reflect the nature and extent of their true occurrence.” (Reference 5)

A by-product of a broken “media-crime-criminal justice” relationship has been the erosion of certain civil liberties. In particular the presumption of innocence, the rules of habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial, the fundamental right to silence and the right to trial by jury in an ordinary Court for non-terrorist offences.

There is a “growing insignificance of the presumption of innocence for accused persons such that its “tangible benefits [appear] little in evidence in our criminal justice system.” (Reference 6)

In conjunction with media scare-mongering that is disproportionate to the threat posed the fallout “has been global in scope – in particular, in the battering taken by international human rights standards and even the Geneva Conventions.” (Reference 7)

The Dublin-Limerick Effect

During the 1990’s, Dublin and Limerick became the focal point for domestic media crime reporting especially amongst the tabloids. Specialised law enforcement units evolved in response to this relatively new type of threat to state security. Due to the changes in the nature of offences being brought before the Courts there was a drive to author new legislation as a unique set of legal challenges began to appear when investigating these offences.

It also became clear that gangs and gang members were proving difficult to tackle and existing legislation made gathering evidence to support trials difficult. The Criminal Justice Act 2006, legislated for during the tenure of Michael McDowell as the Minister for Justice, created a new offence of membership of an organised crime gang, or “criminal organisation”, and made it an offence to assist the activities of an organised crime gang.

Evolving this legislation the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009 provided for the use in criminal trials of material obtained during covert surveillance. The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill further defined membership of a criminal organisation and made it an offence to direct the activities of one.

There were also a host of newly created scheduled offences contained in the legislation which allowed gang members to be tried in the non-jury Special Criminal Court. In Section 8 of the Bill a declaration was made that the ordinary courts were inadequate and were not in a position to effectively administer justice as there was a pervasive threat of jury tampering and intimidation.

Despite this there was no evidence that the ordinary courts had previously failed repeatedly to justify such a sweeping alteration of the normal rules of habeas corpus, the right to silence (removed by the introduction of “inferences”), the right to trial by jury and the fundamental right of the presumption of innocence.

To support this view that the legislation was ill-conceived and introduced to reduce the workload and evidence required in securing convictions in these cases Central Criminal Court Judge Mr. Justice Paul Carney stated that when gang members were brought before a jury in his court there were no difficulties in securing convictions.

Maintaining Integrity & Accuracy

The interactions between the media and criminal justice should to be governed by a clear understanding of boundaries and acceptable authority. There should also be an attempt to maintain independence from political influence and any vested interest bias.

Restricting reporting to verifiable fact on matters of fundamental importance is paramount. Instead there has been “a surrender to an exaggerated, media-driven perception of the levels of crime or the threat posed by certain types of crime.” (Reference 8)

Mandated commentators – journalists – were historically, to a greater or lesser degree, controlled and restricted according to their professional standards and ethics. The concept of a trusted press was based on the premise that facts formed the basis of reporting.

Developing commentary and drawing conclusions from those facts was to be a task fulfilled by those who possessed subject matter expertise, experience and independence.

Rather we have experienced “hysteria in the media about crime” (Reference 9) which “has caused a moral panic and calls for extreme measures such as zero tolerance.” (Reference 9). This has led to questions as to whether “vested interests have turned a manageable problem into a crisis?” (Reference 10)

The Effect Of Poor Standards

Over time “opinion pieces”, “columnists”, “editorials”, “investigative journalism” and “news anchor monologues” became the means by which competing media outlets in an increasingly crowded market vied with each other for market share where even non-commercial bloggers now vie for the public’s eyeballs.

This is in stark contrast to what was the case previously. There has been an erosion of the boundary between what is delivered as fact and what is offered as opinion. It is often not clear which is which.

Personal opinion, political alignment, individual or organisational prejudice or vested interest factors have increasingly influenced media output and the production of opinion pieces, as fact, is de rigueur.

The combination of these phenomenon has produced an often misinformed public view of crime and criminality and by extension criminal justice.

There have been several seismic shifts that have evolved the relationship between the media, crime, and criminal justice. The catalysts for these shifts are myriad and include complex changes in social norms, a more diverse society as an outcome of membership of the EU and in more recent times immigration, advancements in technology, a lowering of the bar with respect to fact-checking and independence and a number of external influencers that previously did not exercise control – whether direct of indirect – on the operations of sovereign states in Europe such as The European Court of Human Rights and other external bodies which exercise extra-national legislative influence.

The role of the media in society has naturally evolved over the last century. A free and independent media in a democracy was to be catalyst for positive change.

A relatively free press and a notionally independent judiciary emerged in the first quarter of the 20th century. Media became a liberal and in part, socially crusading, part of society during the third quarter of the 20th century.

With the emergence and evolution of digital media in the latter part of the 20th century until the present – the media – became every person who possessed a keyboard and with that journalistic integrity became diluted. So too did media freedom. Media is influenced by vested interests and by extension so too are the public.

The Loss of Self-Imposed Governance

The relationship between the media and court officials, members of the judiciary, law enforcement, law makers or politicians was at one point to a greater or lesser degree governed by what was once self-imposed governance.

Acceptable practice, and adherence to a set professional standards were respected. Sometimes as a result of a moral compass and sometimes as a result of the threat of potential sanction.

By extension the media ability to influence public opinion on social phenomena, such as crime, without necessarily adhering to legislation or citizens rights as enshrined in statute and the constitution has been blurred.

Data Protection, Confidentiality & Due Process

Chinese Walls, acting as an insurmountable barrier to the passage of confidential information, between the media and criminal justice has all but ceased to exist.

The age of the “leak” which is normally a self serving exercise and the “whistleblower” which is normally in the public interest defines to a great extent the current relationship between the media and criminal justice and the reporting and perception of crime.

The recent alleged extreme rise in violent crime nationally and gun violence between organised criminal gangs has been used by the political parties, An Garda Siochana and lobby groups to ridicule legitimate opposition to the illegal practises of the non-jury Special Criminal Court apparatus in particular.

The Media, Like An Garda Siochana, Are Held To Increasingly Low Standards

I reference a recent article in the Independent with the title “ Highly Sophisticated Eastern European Thieves Making A Fortune In Burglaries Targeting Rural Ireland” (Reference 11).

This article is a prime example of poor journalistic standards facilitating the shoddy application of criminal justice and the poor performance of An Garda Siochana.

It offers transparent sensationalism and embellished fact to facilitate the creation of an impression in the public’s mind. The impression that the article creates is an impression that is simply not true and it is published by what is considered to be one of the main news outlets in the Republic of Ireland.

It is a prime example of the phenomenon and a poster-boy for quantity not quality as the driver for news production in 21st Century Ireland.

The article refers to “the international professional burglary gang which has carried out robberies with “military precision” in Munster”. On examination of this statement it appears that the only evidence of organisation and precision was a time limit the burglars generally imposed upon themselves during their robberies which was deduced from the observation that they looked at “their watches at regular intervals”.

The author then describes how the gang weaponised their vehicles by “transforming “cheap” cars into battering rams, capable of smashing through the premises.”. In fact this impressive sounding planning and preparation actually involved the removal of a seat and its replacement with some concrete blocks.

When the man who was convicted of the crimes was being arrested by armed members of An Garda Siochana the journalist states that “a man “accompanying” him was shot in the face”.

The use of quotes around the word “accompanying” gave this reader the impression that the journalist was insinuating that while the man was never arrested or charged with a crime that he was somehow complicit.

The headline of this article is calculated to draw the attention of the reader and suggests that large amounts of burglaries had been carried out and that vast amounts of monies had been generated by the criminals from the proceeds of their crimes.

The far less sensational reality is that over a two year period during three documented robberies that €150,000 of goods were stolen and not a single member of the public was physically harmed.

Reference Index

1 “Ireland’s Social Contract Is Broken And An Alternative Is Now Required: Social Justice Ireland”. [online] Retrieved from: now-required-social-justice-ireland-786142.html N.p., 2017. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.

2 “Ireland’s Social Contract Is Broken And An Alternative Is Now Required: Social Justice Ireland”. [online] Retrieved from: now-required-social-justice-ireland-786142.html N.p., 2017. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.

3 Crime In Ireland (2016) “Crime In Ireland”. [online] Retrieved from: N.p., 2016. Web. 04 Apr. 2017.

4 Crime In Ireland (2016) “Crime In Ireland”. [online] Retrieved from: N.p., 2016. Web. 04 Apr. 2017.

5 “Fear of Crime in Ireland and its Impact on Quality of Life”. %20in%20Ireland.pdf/Files/Fear%20of%20Crime%20in%20Ireland.pdf. N.p., 2016. Web 27 Mar. 2017.

6 Hamilton, Dr. C. “The Presumption Of Innocence In Irish Criminal Law: Recent Trends And Possible Explanations”. N.p., 2011. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.

7 McLintock, Michael. “Erosion Of Human Rights Sets Bad Example”. human-rights-sets-bad-example-1.1095225 The Irish Times. N.p., 2002. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.

8 Walsh, Professor Dermot. “The Criminal Justice Act, 2006: A Crushing Defeat For Due Process Values?”. [online] Retrieved from: Judicial Studies Institute Journal. N.p., 2007. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.

9 O’Connell, Dr. Mick. “Crime And Media Hysteria: Tone Down The Headlines | Politico”. [online] Retrieved from: N.p., 1998. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

10 Kerrigan, Gene & Shaw, Helen. “Crime Hysteria”. Magill 1985: 7-12. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

11 Raleigh, David. “‘Highly Sophisticated’ Eastern European Thieves Making A Fortune In Burglaries Targeting Rural Ireland – Independent.Ie”. [online] Retrieved from: eastern-european-thieves-making-a-fortune-in-burglaries-targeting-rural-ireland-35605436.html., 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.


A. Ashworth, “Four Threats to the Presumption of Innocence” (2006) 10 E. & P. 241-279

An Garda Síochana (2015). An Garda Síochana Annual Report . [report] Ireland: An Garda Síochana

C. Hamilton, Whittling the Golden Thread: The Presumption of Innocence in Irish Criminal Law (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2007)

Crime In Ireland (2016) “Crime In Ireland”. [online] Retrieved from: N.p., 2016. Web. 04 Apr. 2017.

Department of Justice & Equality. “Publication Of Commission Of Investigation (Certain Matters Relative To The Cavan/Monaghan Division Of An Garda Síochána) Final Report – The Department Of Justice And Equality”. [online] Retrieved from: N.p., 2017. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.

Department of Justice, Equality & Law Reform. “Fear of Crime in Ireland and its Impact on Quality of Life”. [online] Retrieved from: %20in%20Ireland.pdf. N.p., 2016. Web 27 Mar. 2017.

Dowler, Kenneth. “Media Consumption And Public Attitudes Toward Crime And Justice- JCJPC,Volume 10, Issue 2”. [online] Retrieved from: N.p., 2017. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.

Hamilton, Dr. C. “The Presumption Of Innocence In Irish Criminal Law: Recent Trends And Possible Explanations”. N.p., 2011. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.

H. Kennedy, Just Law: The Changing Face of Justice and Why it Matters to Us All (London: Chatto and Windus, 2004).

Kerrigan, Gene & Shaw, Helen. “Crime Hysteria”. Magill 1985: 7-12. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

M. O’Halloran, “Ahern rejects claim that Asbo system is a ‘failure’” Irish Times (26 February 2009)

McLintock, Michael (2002). “Erosion Of Human Rights Sets Bad Example”. [online] Retrieved from: The Irish Times. N.p., 2002. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.

O’Connell, Dr. Mick. “Crime And Media Hysteria: Tone Down The Headlines | Politico”. [online] Retrieved from: N.p., 1998. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Raleigh, David. “‘Highly Sophisticated’ Eastern European Thieves Making A Fortune In Burglaries Targeting Rural Ireland – Independent.Ie”. [online] Retrieved from: eastern-european-thieves-making-a-fortune-in-burglaries-targeting-rural-ireland-35605436.html., 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.

Statute Book, Irish. “Criminal Justice Act 2006”. Office of the Attorney General, 2006. [online] Retrieved from: 4 Apr. 2017.

Statute Book, Irish. “The Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009”. Office of the Attorney General, 2009. [online] Retrieved from: 4 Apr. 2017.

Various, “Ireland’s Social Contract Is Broken And An Alternative Is Now Required: Social Justice Ireland”. [online] Retrieved from: alternative-is-now-required-social-justice-ireland-786142.html N.p., 2017. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.

Walsh, Professor Dermot. “The Criminal Justice Act, 2006: A Crushing Defeat For Due Process Values?”. [online] Retrieved from: Judicial Studies Institute Journal. N.p., 2007. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.