WE have no way of knowing how far Cleveland Police went in monitoring the calls of three Northern Echo journalists because the force will neither confirm nor deny the allegation that it used legal powers to access their telephone phone records.

We have seen documents apparently showing that Cleveland Police made an application under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to access data from the mobile phones of its own federation chairman, a solicitor and our three reporters.

It remains inconclusive whether that request was granted or how much data was gathered but we believe we have a right to be told.

The RIPA legislation is designed to regulate the powers of police and public bodies to carry out covert surveillance, and the events in Paris over the past few days underline how important it is for the authorities to be able to monitor telephone messages in their attempts to combat terrorism and serious crime.

The police describe RIPA as a powerful force for good and we don't doubt that is often the case in this increasingly dangerous world.

But the allegation in the example of Cleveland Police is that secret data access was sought in order to identify a “whistle-blower” who was suspected of leaking information about an internal force investigation which pointed to “elements of institutional racism”.

Is that really what the RIPA legislation was intended for? Is it truly a proportionate and appropriate use of the legislation? Where is the line to be drawn between legitimate criminal investigations and basic human rights?

These are legitimate questions to ask because they go to the heart of the privacy debate in this country.

Now that the Police Federation has made a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, we await answers with interest.