Appeal to European Court being considered after ruling over Troubles disclosures

A legal battle around the Government’s disclosure of sensitive material may be taken to the European Court of Human Rights.

Amnesty International described a “grim day for truth” after the Government won a Supreme Court case to prevent a coroner in Northern Ireland disclosing certain sensitive material at a Troubles inquest.

Liam Paul Thompson, 25, died on April 27, 1994 after being shot by loyalists in the area of Springfield Park.

His family believe there was collusion in his murder.

The High Court and Court of Appeal in Belfast had previously backed the coroner’s decision to release the gists as part of her inquest findings, leading the Government to appeal against that decision to the UK’s highest court.

Reacting to the ruling in Belfast, human rights groups voiced concern at the implications for other cases.

They said they are not ruling out going to the European Court of Human Rights.

Daniel Holder, director of CAJ – whose lawyers acted as legal representatives to the late Eugene Thompson, the brother of Mr Thompson, said they will discuss with the family the next steps they want to take.

“There is the potential for the European Court of Human Rights to get involved in this – this isn’t the end of the line,” he said.

“But we also need to look at the broader international pressures from the United Nations.

“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 their loved ones.”

He added: “This most certainly is not the end of this issue.”

Grainne Teggart, deputy director of Amnesty International in Northern Ireland, said families will continue to fight for truth and justice.

He added: “Today is not the end, victims will continue to fight, and they will continue to be supported by ours and other organisations to get the truth that is due to them.

“The UK Government has claimed that it is committed to a process that will finally centre victims, well now we need to see it.

“We need to see it through legislation, and we need to see it in terms of what they do as next steps after today.”

Mark Thompson, chief executive of Relatives for Justice, said for the family the ruling “has reinforced the view that those running agents/informers remain unaccountable, above and beyond the law”.

“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,” he said.

“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.”

West Belfast MP Paul Maskey described the Supreme Court ruling as “extremely disappointing and indeed concerning for the Thompson family and all families campaigning for truth and justice”.

“The Thompson family have been campaigning over three decades, showing incredible strength in the face of obstruction by the British state and their ongoing refusal to grant even a basic level of justice to victims’ families,” he said.

“I will stand with the Thompson family as they continue their brave fight to uncover the truth about Paul’s murder.”

Meanwhile UUP MLA Doug Beattie said there is a need for full disclosure for victims while safeguarding national security.

“Failure to disclose all information should be done by exception; it should not be standard practice, and it is important that governance mechanisms are in place to prevent it from being abused,” he said.

“In regard to the murder of Liam Paul Thompson, it is hard to see how national security can be compromised by releasing information into his murder while at the same time redacting names and covert procedures.

“The reality is that the court has the power to decide; where I can understand the decision, I cannot accept there isn’t another way to release as much information as possible to the family without undermining national security.”