How British state secrecy just got worse

In 1994, Paul Thompson, a 25-year-old Catholic was shot dead in a taxi by a loyalist (pro-British) gang in Belfast.

Three decades later, his family is still trying to uncover the truth about whether the British state colluded in his murder.

As part of a legacy inquest, a coroner sought to provide the family with a limited “gist” of information.

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland agreed this was lawful and proportionate.

However on Wednesday, the UK’s Supreme Court overturned those decisions.

This ruling is not simply a setback for one family; it is a profound blow to truth, accountability and the rule of law.

The UK government must not interpret this judgment as a blank cheque to conceal state involvement in Troubles-era killings.

The organisation I work for, Amnesty International UK, as well as the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) and Relatives for Justice, are deeply concerned about what this judgment may mean in practice.

National security is already being used as a sweeping shield against truth and accountability.

For too long, the purpose and effect of national security in legacy cases has been to withhold information about killings, collusion and other grave human rights violations.

When the state decides what victims are allowed to know about its own actions, the promise of truth becomes illusory.

Stakeknife

The timing of this ruling is particularly stark. Just last week, the UK government refused to allow an official police probe (Operation Kenova) to name the IRA agent known as Stakeknife, despite his central role in a campaign of violence and murder.

Northern Ireland secretary Hilary Benn explicitly cited the pending Thompson judgment as justification to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) Stakeknife’s identity.

The result is an absurd and deeply damaging position: one of the most notorious state agents of the conflict remains officially unnamed decades on, while families are told that disclosure would somehow endanger national security.

This refusal does not protect security; it protects impunity. It also provides cover not just for one agent, but for others whose actions are still to be revealed.

The Thompson ruling must not be relied upon to justify and entrench secrecy, nor to reinforce a system in which those responsible for running agents during the conflict remain shielded from scrutiny.

Dying in the dark

The human cost of this approach is painfully clear. Paul Thompson’s brother Eugene was terminally ill when the case was heard by the Supreme Court this June.

He died a month later, having spent decades seeking answers.

Like so many families, he was forced to fight the state for information that should never have been withheld in the first place.

His experience is not an exception; it is emblematic of a system that appears designed to exhaust victims rather than serve them.

This judgment also sits alongside the government’s proposed new legacy legislation.

Despite clear rulings from domestic courts and warnings from UN special rapporteurs, the proposed Troubles Bill retains powers allowing ministers to block information on national security grounds.

Three UN experts have already warned that such powers risk concealing extrajudicial killings, torture and other violations of international law.

Time for truth

Next steps will now be considered by the family. A legal challenge to the European Court of Human Rights may now be both real and necessary**.**

Strasbourg has repeatedly affirmed that families have a right to effective investigations and to information about the circumstances of their loved ones’ deaths.

NCND is policy, not law. It remains open to the UK government to show leadership and commit to truth and transparency.

If the government is serious about a new approach to the past, it must demonstrate that commitment in practice and stop acting as a gatekeeper of secrecy.

Families who have endured decades of delay and denial do not need more legal shields erected against them. They need honesty, accountability and good faith.

The continued reliance on the “Neither Confirm Nor Deny” policy delivers none of these. It means neither truth nor justice. After decades of waiting, families deserve both.