The fight for the truth about Paul “Topper” Thompson’s murder

Ancient Order of Hibernians National President Sean Pender describes the British strategy for handling Troubles-legacy cases in the following pithy way: “Deny, Delay, and Wait for People to Die.”

This 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.

This article will review the case’s factual and procedural history so that you can reach your own conclusion about that.

The loyalist paramilitary Ulster Freedom Fighters group, assisted by suspected state collusion, shot Thompson to death with a sub-machine gun. A Grab-a-Cab taxi was taking him home from work 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, prior to the shooting, a hole had been cut into the fence that compromised security in the area. Authorities knew that loyalists used that opening to conduct attacks, but did nothing to repair it.

Thompson’s mother Margaret began the family’s fight for the truth about her son'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 quest for the truth continued, as Paul’s brother Eugene carried it forward. 

The Inquest, which opened in 1995, didn’t 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 Secretary of State of Northern Ireland claimed confidentiality for seven folders of evidence based on national security grounds. A PII claim requires a court to balance the need to protect national security with other public interests like the administration of justice. It took years to get to the point of resolving PII claims in the Thompson case.

In 2021, Northern Ireland's Lord Chief Justice announced a five-year plan to handle the backlog of legacy Inquests that had grown to more than 50 cases 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 PII certificate only referred to six evidence folders in his application. The certificate failed to include “Folder 7,” which the Secretary said also contained information that should not be disclosed.

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 that it contained “highly relevant” information that had “central importance” to the Thompson Inquest. (Emphasis added.)

Based on this finding, she found it was appropriate to release a “gist” of the information in Folder 7 to Thompson’s brother Eugene. 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 proceedings without risking serious harm to national security.   

She was not the first coroner to issue a gist. The coroner in the Sean Brown Inquest had issued a gist that disclosed that state agents were among the 25 people linked to his 1997 murder. That gist confirmed the suspicions of collusion. The belief is that the gist in the Thompson case may similarly confirm collusion.

The Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Police Chief Constable went to court to overturn the coroner’s decision to issue the Thompson gist. A Northern Ireland High Court judge rejected their contention.

First, the court noted that the coroner had mitigated the risk of harm to national security by redacting the names, dates, and intelligence in the folder. Second, the court noted that providing the family a gist advanced the administration of justice, which it said is always in the public interest. Third, the court 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.

At this point, the Chief Constable recommended wording that the coroner could release in an “amended gist.” He said the amended language was not damaging to national security, nor did it violate NCND. After review, the coroner ruled that the suggested language in the amended gist should be released. The Secretary of State challenged this decision in court. Both the Northern Ireland High Court and the Northern Ireland Court of Appeals upheld the coroner and ruled against the Secretary.

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, which had loomed over the final months of the Thompson Inquest, did not end the case. Because of 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.

Among other things, 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 have a duty 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 has taken 30 years to get to this point, saying, “I don’t have an answer to that question.”

These legal matters 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.

What is straightforward, however, is the human impact of the case. Eugene Thompson is represented by the Committee on the Administration of Justice, a Belfast human rights NGO He is a party to the litigation, and his barrister presented an argument on his behalf to the Court. Sadly, he was unable to attend the hearing in person because he is in hospice, dying from cancer. He was, however, present on the Court’s weblink.  

His barrister effectively set forth his position to the Court. The presiding Justice noted the Court’s appreciation that Eugene Thompson’s brief provided factual context to the case.

His barrister told the court 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.” (Emphasis added.)"

Government Ministers don’t always get it right in determining the scope of information that needs to remain secret. That is why courts have a role to play in reviewing these decisions. Lower courts don’t always get it right either, which is why their decisions are reviewed by higher courts - in this case by the UK Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, though not infallible, will have the final word. That is how the system works.

I’m not able to predict what that final word will be, but I believe the coroner and lower courts struck the right balance in determining a gist was appropriate. My hope is that the Supreme Court’s final word recognizes and respects 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.

This article was submitted to the IrishCentral contributors network by a member of the global Irish community. To become an IrishCentral contributor click here.