When State Secrecy Collides With a Murder Inquiry: The Supreme Court Decision Reshapes Accountability

The killing of Paul Thompson in Belfast in 1994 has become the focal point of a much broader constitutional and moral struggle over who decides what the state may keep hidden. His relatives sought a coroner’s release of a summary drawn from police files; the coroner and the Police Service of Northern Ireland argued it was central to understanding alleged collusion but the government and the national security agency moved to prevent disclosure. The dispute reached the United Kingdom’s highest court, which concluded that the government’s assessment of harm to national security should stand unless it was plainly irrational or unsupported by evidence. That judgment effectively affirms executive primacy when sensitive intelligence is at issue, even where local investigators want transparency. The ruling has immediate consequences for other legacy cases: it complicates attempts to name and publish findings about agents whose roles during the Troubles have been contested for decades. One high-profile subject tied to multiple inquiries died under state protection and remains central to questions about whether the security services shielded wrongdoing. Separately, a parliamentary measure that paused many inquests created a new commission to examine historic cases, but that body’s power to disclose material can still be curtailed by ministers — a point now under fresh legal scrutiny. Senior police leadership has openly challenged the doctrine that the executive alone should resolve national security claims, framing the issue as one of proportionate application rather than blanket secrecy. Critics warn that the combination of legal precedent and ministerial veto powers risks burying information that could establish accountability for killings and investigative failures. At the same time, recent inquiries into intelligence failings have eroded confidence in the services’ own explanations, creating a rare public clash between police chiefs and security officials. The result is a legal and political environment where bereaved families confront a higher barrier to obtaining answers, and where debates about oversight, independent review, and the rule of law will intensify. Unless policy or legislative change narrows executive vetoes or tightens standards for secrecy claims, many historical cases may remain unresolved and public trust in state institutions may continue to decline.