Supreme Court Thompson Ruling Could Enable Secretary of State to Conceal Involvement of State Agents in Trouble Killings
December 17, 2025Amnesty International UK / Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) / Relatives for Justice (RFJ)
Human rights groups CAJ, Amnesty and RFJ have voiced concerns at the implications of the UK Supreme Court ruling in the Thompson case.
The case related to a legacy inquest into the sectarian murder of Paul Thompson in Belfast in 1994 by the loyalist paramilitary group the UDA, with suspected state collusion. The case engages the rights of victims’ families to truth about state involvement in Troubles killings.
The Supreme Court, dealing with an appeal by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, overturned the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland who had held that the Coroner was entitled to release a ‘gist’ of ‘sensitive’ information to the victims’ family. The Supreme Court ruled instead the Secretary of State’s views on the national security implications of a ‘gist’ are to be given primacy and seeks to set a high bar for Coroners.
The Coroner, Chief Constable of the PSNI and Paul Thompsons’ brother Eugene Thompson were respondents in the appeal advocating the Coroner was entitled to release the gist, a position also taken by the intervenors, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
Eugene Thompson who had long campaigned for truth regarding his brother’s killing was terminally ill at the time of the June Supreme Court hearing and sadly passed away in late July. His passing came shortly after the PSNI Chief Constable had issued an official apology to him for the police failings in relation to the murder, which included failing to arrest and investigate three potential suspects.
The Secretary of State’s appeal cited the UK Government ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ (NCND) policy. Recent Home Office guidance disclosed during the hearing revealed a policy position that the involvement of a state agent in a conflict-related incident should not be publicly disclosed ‘at all’ in legacy cases.
Human rights and victims’ groups are particularly concerned that the Supreme Court ruling in practice enables ministers to conceal the involvement of state agents in killings during the Northern Ireland conflict.
An express power of ‘national security veto’, whereby the Secretary of State can redact legacy reports before they go to families was written into the 2023 Northern Ireland Legacy Act. This ‘national security veto’ was found to be unlawful by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in the Dillon case. That ruling is subject to a separate appeal to the Supreme Court by the Secretary of State. The Labour Governments’ Troubles Bill, which will replace the Legacy Act, seeks to retain a similar national security veto. In response to this three official UN experts on truth recovery, torture and extrajudicial executions have raised concerns that the “The [Secretary of State’s national security] veto power could lead to concealing the involvement of state agents in extrajudicial killings, torture and other violations, which is incompatible with international and ECHR standards”.[1]
Responding to the Supreme Court ruling:
Daniel Holder, Director of CAJ, whose lawyers acted as legal representatives to the late Eugene Thompson, said:
“Three UN experts have already highlighted that a national security veto power in Northern Ireland legacy legislation breaches international law. Families have a right to know whether the state was involved in the killing of their loved ones.”
“CAJ is concerned that this ruling in practice could enable a Secretary of State to conceal the involvement of state agents in killings and other violations during the Northern Ireland conflict. The ruling itself implies that doing so is an appropriate application of the Governments’ Neither Confirm Nor Deny (NCND) policy.
“This is despite ministers being ultimately responsible for the security agencies that were running the agents.”
Gráinne Teggart, Northern Ireland Deputy Director of Amnesty International UK, said:
“Today is a grim day for truth. National security cannot be a blank cheque to conceal state wrongdoing or human rights violations.
“NCND is policy, not law. The Government’s misuse of this policy continues to block truth, rather than deliver it.
“The Thompson case epitomises everything that is broken in the UK’s legacy approach: secrecy, endless delay, and a state closing ranks against a family seeking answers. When multiple government departments line up against one grieving family, it tells victims exactly where they stand. Truth should not depend on how hard families are prepared to fight, or how long they can survive the process.
“This a critical time for truth, the UK government must not take this as an opportunity to entrench secrecy in this or any other case. The doubling down on national security that we also see in the Troubles Bill is not the fresh approach victims expected. Families must be given the truth they deserve, rather than be forced to continue fighting a state determined to hide it.”
Mark Thompson CEO of Relatives for Justice (RFJ) said:
“This case has demonstrated beyond doubt that Paul’s murder involved state agent/s at some level. The questions have been about the extent of and how far that involvement went. It was hoped that the publication of the gist would, in part, seek to address these concerns. For the family today’s ruling has reinforced the view that those running agents/informers remain unaccountable, above and beyond the law.
Yet again the clear message from this ruling is that the government will do everything within its power to cover those handling and running agents even in circumstances involving murder. This does not bode well for any new legacy arrangements. This effectively constitutes the retention of a de facto form of immunity that was previously found to be unlawful within the Legacy Act.
We want to pay tribute to the late Eugene Thompson who fought for truth and justice for his brother Paul and who sadly passed away earlier this year not long after the supreme court hearing. For him, the ruling came too late. However, the extended family, supported by the community, will continue to pursue this case and seek justice for Paul.”
BACKGROUND
- The Thompson case arises from a legacy inquest into the 1994 killing of Paul “Topper” Thompson by the UDA, with suspected involvement of state agents.
- In 2024, as the commencement of the ban on further legacy inquest proceedings introduced by the 2023 Legacy Act approached, the Coroner sought to release a “gist” to the family, providing further information about the killing.
- The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intervened to block publication of the gist, relying on the NCND policy in relation to intelligence matters and the actions of state agents.
- This intervention followed shortly after the Coroner in the Sean Brown inquest released a gist stating that state agents were linked to the 1997 murder of GAA official Sean Brown by the LVF.
- The High Court and Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland both upheld the Coroner’s decision, finding she was entitled to release the gist in the Thompson case.
- The Secretary of State appealed to the UK Supreme Court, supported by other UK government departments.
- The Supreme Court hearing took place in June 2025, with the Thompson family, the Coroner and the PSNI Chief Constable as respondents, all supporting publication of the gist.
- Eugene Thompson, who was terminally ill at the time of the hearing, sadly passed away in late July 2025, one week after receiving a bedside apology from PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher for police failings in relation to his brother’s killing.
- Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn cited the pending Thompson judgment as the reason for not consenting to the final Operation Kenova report naming the agent known as “Stakeknife” when it was published last week.
- The Thompson ruling and background information is available on the UK Supreme Court website here: https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0083
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0083_judgment_43083780fd.pdf
Media contacts
- Harriet Garland – harriet.garland@amnesty.org.uk 07721 398 984
- Gráinne Teggart – grainne.teggart@amnesty.org.uk / 07928 042 315
- CAJ: Daniel Holder – daniel@caj.org.uk / 07786 876460
[1] OL GBR 18/2025, UN Special Rapporteurs Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence; Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, communication on UK and Ireland Joint Framework, 30 October 2025; page 9. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=30443