At a recent Ancient Order of Hibernians webinar on the Sean Brown case, National President Sean Pender described the British strategy for handling Troubles-legacy cases in the following pithy way: “Deny, Delay, and Wait for People to Die.”
As this article will detail, the description certainly applies to how the British government has handled the investigation of the 1994 murder of Paul “Topper” Thompson near a peace line fence at Springfield Park in West Belfast.
The loyalist paramilitary Ulster Freedom Fighters group, assisted by suspected state collusion, shot Thompson to death with a sub machine gun. He was coming home from work in a Grab-a-Cab taxi, when the sectarian killing occurred.
Evidence indicated that loyalists used a scanning device to monitor calls to and from Grab-a-Cab, and that a call for a “pick-up” at Springfield Park on the night of the murder may have been a set-up.
Additionally, before the shooting, a hole had been cut into the fence which compromised security in the area. Authorities knew that loyalists used the opening to conduct attacks, but did nothing to repair it. Thompson’s mother Margaret began the family’s quest for the truth about Paul’s death 31-years ago.
Beyond wanting to know the details of the murder, she asked why was Paul murdered that night? How was it able to happen?
Why was the fence left unrepaired?
Did the Royal Ulster Constabulary fail to conduct an effective investigation of the killing because it was complicit in the fatal attack?
Sadly, she died in 2004. But the family’s pursuit of the truth continued. Paul’s brother Eugene carried it forward.
The Thompson murder Inquest opened in 1995 but did not get very far. Repeated delays by state agencies stymied the Inquest for decades. Additionally, the “Public Interest Immunity” (PII) process caused numerous adjournments.
PII permits a party in litigation to apply for a court order that allows the party to refuse to disclose relevant evidence to the other side based upon a need for maintaining secrecy.
In the Thompson case, the Northern Ireland (NI) Secretary of State claimed confidentiality for seven folders of evidence based on national security grounds.
This claim required a court to strike a balance between the need to protect national security and other public interests like the administration of justice. Even after many years, the issue is still unresolved.
In 2021, NI’s Lord Chief Justice announced a five-year plan to handle the backlog of more than 50 legacy Inquests. It had grown that large because Inquests were not being heard.
The Thompson Inquest was placed on a new case management list, and the coroner started to hear evidence in 2023. A PII hearing scheduled for February 2024 was adjourned, because the Secretary of State’s certificate for PII (application) only referred to six evidence folders. In fact, there was another evidence folder - “Folder 7” - the Secretary said contained information that should also remain confidential. Belatedly, he wanted that information considered too.
The following month, the coroner upheld PII applications for folders 1-6 and excluded them from public disclosure on national security grounds. As for Folder 7, the coroner ruled a short while later that it contained “highly relevant” information that had “central importance” to the Thompson Inquest.
Based on this finding, she ruled it was lawful to make public a “gist” of the information in Folder 7. The gist she proposed was a limited summary of the information in Folder 7. The coroner’s conclusion was aimed at maintaining the integrity of the Inquest proceeding without risking serious harm to national security.
She was not the first NI coroner to issue a gist. The coroner in the Sean Brown Inquest issued a gist. It disclosed that state agents were among the 25 people linked to his 1997 murder.
That gist confirmed the suspicions of collusion in the Brown case. The belief is the gist in the Thompson case may similarly confirm collusion. The Secretary of State and the NI Police Chief Constable asked the court to overturn the coroner’s decision on the gist.
A NI High Court judge rejected their contention.
First, he found that the coroner had mitigated the risk of harm to national security by redacting the names, dates, and intelligence in the folder.
Second, he rebuffed the government’s argument that any disclosure would breach the government’s “Neither Confirm Nor Deny” (NCND) policy, which protects State agents/informers and the existence of investigations and operations, because the coroner had redacted that information.
Third, he noted that providing the Thompson family a gist advanced the administration of justice, which the court said is always in the public interest. At this point, the Chief Constable recommended wording that could be released in an “amended gist.”
He said the amended language was not damaging to national security, nor did it violate NCND policy. After review, the coroner ruled the suggested language in the amended gist should be released. The matter didn’t end there, however, because the Secretary of State returned to court challenging that determination.
Both the NI High Court and NI Court of Appeals upheld the coroner and ruled against the Secretary of State.
On May 1, 2024, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act came into effect. It shut down 36 Inquest hearings, including Thompson’s. The deadline had loomed over the final months of the Thompson Inquest.
While a guillotine brought the Inquest to a close, the case continued in court. Due to the national security implications of the lower court rulings, the Secretary of State appealed to the United Kingdom (UK) Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard arguments on June 11 (public setting) and June 12 (private setting), 2025. Confidential information, including the gist, was discussed during the Court’s private setting.
Among other legal issues, the government’s advocate argued that it was the Secretary of State’s job - not the Chief Constable’s - to decide if the release of a gist posed a risk to national security; that neither the coroner nor the courts are in a position to reassess the government’s decision about a gist; and that the NCND policy provides important assistance to the government in keeping information secret to protect national security.
He was unable to respond to a Justice who asked why the information disclosure process had taken 30 plus years to get to this point, saying “I don’t have an answer to that question.”
These issues are not straightforward. Inherent in national security concerns is the notion of predictive risk, which requires the exercise of judgment. Balancing the interests involved in the need for government secrecy and fostering government transparency also requires the exercise of judgment. It is fair to say that expertise is important to decision-making in each area.
What is straightforward, however, is the human impact of the case. Eugene Thompson was represented by the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ), a Belfast human rights NGO. Sadly, he was unable to attend the hearing in person because he is in hospice dying from cancer. He attended the hearing on the Court’s weblink.
1. Paul ‘Topper’ Thompson case: Supreme Court hearing concludes, judgment is reserved
The UK Supreme Court has concluded a two-day hearing on the appeal brought by the Secretary of State, the Ministry of Defence, and the Home Office against the Court of Appeal’s decision… pic.twitter.com/RcyMaEpkRR
— Relatives 4 Justice #NeverGivingUp (@RelsForJustice) June 12, 2025
The presiding Justice noted the Court’s appreciation that Eugene Thompson’s brief provided the Justices a factual context to the case. In Court, his barrister told the Justices that, after fighting for three decades, Eugene “desperately wants to see anything the coroner has characterized as essential evidence.”
It would be important for him to know the amended gist “before he is not in any position to know.” She said he feels that those who were supposed to protect the public colluded with those who murdered his brother, and that there must be accountability.
She argued that, while he understood the limited gist would not provide the full truth about the murder, it could provide an acknowledgement of government wrongdoing which would be important to him to learn before he dies.
In a statement issued in conjunction with the Supreme Court hearing, CAJ Director Daniel Holder captured the case’s significance when he said: “Eugene and his family have long sought justice and truth regarding Paul’s murder but have been met by repeated delay and obstruction.
An effective investigation has never taken place and an Inquest has not been completed 31-years on.
This case has wide implications for numerous bereaved families and the rule of law. National security surely cannot be invoked to conceal state wrongdoing or the involvement of state agents in killings or other human rights violations.” It is difficult to predict what the UK Supreme Court will hold.
Nevertheless, I believe the coroner and lower courts struck the right balance in concluding it was lawful to issue a gist. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will recognize and respect the human element of the case; that is, a family’s multi-decade quest to overcome the obstacles preventing them from learning the truth about a loved one’s murder. After all, that’s what lies at the core of the case.
Ed Neafsey is a retired New Jersey Superior Court Judge. He provided legal research on U.S. torture and civil rights law to the Belfast human rights group, Committee on the Administration of Justice, in the Hooded Men Case and Shanahan v UK. He served as a trial observer in the Diplock Court case against the Beechmont 5 defendants.
