Ongoing hearings continue behind closed doors by the British secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, despite suffering what many legal commentators described as a humiliating defeat last month to his legal challenge against the coroner hearing the inquest into the 1994 UDA murder of Paul ‘Topper’ Thompson.
The closed hearings are occurring as lawyers for Heaton-Harris requested a stay – delay – following the ruling whilst they continue to make further arguments in secret.
The failed legal challenge against the sitting coroner, Ms Louisa Fee, had been mounted by both Heaton-Harris and the PSNI chief constable, Jon Boutcher. They objected to coroner Fee’s view that she felt able to provide a gist of one of 7 intelligence files disclosed to the inquest.
Unlike the PSNI chief constable who accepted the ruling last month and has now withdrawn from the case, Heaton-Harris persists.
A gist enables judges, in this instance acting as the coroner, to provide some information they believe to be relevant and necessary for open and transparent justice whilst also being cognisant of the duty not to also disclose information that might otherwise breach ‘national security’ so-called.
Public Interest Immunity (PII) was also introduced in respect to the files released to the coroner. PII is commonly referred to as a ‘gagging order’ and seeks to prohibit information from being placed into the public domain – information the authorities do not want to be made public.
Ordinarily, and especially at the time of the killing of Paul Thompson, as in numerous killings and attacks involving evidence and/or patterns of state collusion with illegal paramilitaries, inquests took place as ‘investigations’ so-called were perfunctory and deliberately protected those responsible. Inquests during this period were deliberately restricted – also perfunctory – and therefore could not compel state actors, intelligence, or examine in any meaningful way controversial killings involving the state.
However, with significant Article 2 rulings in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) centered on these failed investigations and inquest system, including upholding the rights of families to effective remedy, inquests now have much more powers under the law.
Oftentimes PII is deployed to protect killers within illegal organisations working for the state, and their handlers. However, after carefully balancing all of the competing rights and arguments coroner Fee indicated she could safely provide a gist of the information.
Whilst, from the family’s viewpoint a gist is not ideal as the information remains secret, it nevertheless enables some understanding of what information exists and has been – or rather is being – withheld from the family by the PSNI and others. Clearly coroner Fee felt the information was relevant to the murder of Paul Thompson.
For example, in the case of Séan Brown the corner hearing that inquest recently provided a gist that revealed a number of state agents were among 25 suspects in the LVF abduction and murder of Séan Brown in 1997. Further, it revealed that MI5 had the principal suspect under constant surveillance for over a year save for the evening Séan Brown was murdered.
The challenge by the British secretary of state in the murder of Paul Thompson indicates a concern by other intelligence agencies – namely MI5. This could well signify a much greater concern that gists and the policy practice of Neither Confirm Nor Deny (NCND) in respect to when asked about the status of a certain individual/s – whether or not the killers are state agents – is not a legal principle.
Given the nature of the gist in the Brown inquest, an inquest the coroner later publicly stated he could no longer continue to hear due to PII, instead calling for a public inquiry, there is certainly a growing anxiety – uneasiness – within state agencies that their grip, attempts to hide and withhold information is not altogether watertight. Not least by those agencies that were/are running agents.
This uneasiness further aired in the inquest hearing into the 1998 LVF murder of Fergal McCusker last week when counsel for the McCusker family revealed recent correspondence between the Heaton-Harris and the PSNI chief constable following the ruling by justice Humphreys in this very case – Paul Thompson – The (SoS & PSNI CC) failed joint challenge now stayed.
In his letter Heaton-Harris sought to assert himself and his political authority over the chief constable by rebuking him for his public comments about gists following the ruling which he welcomed for its clarity. In response, the police chief reminded the Heaton-Harris that the executive – British government – should not be interfering in how he conducts himself in accordance with the law – operational independence. Counsel for the McCusker family described Heaton-Harris’s letter as ‘an unprecedented political intervention’ in inquests. And he was right.
At Friday’s brief update hearing justice Humphreys said there would be a further closed hearing on Monday which, afterwards, he would provide some information to counsel for the Thompson family.
This would then hopefully facilitate submissions from the family’s legal representatives, to be received by Wednesday and he hopes to be in a position by Friday to then conclude. Hopefully, this would finalise the ruling of last month and conclude matters.
The brief hearing also heard that counsel for Heaton-Harris had amended their Order 53 statement (the process by which they outlined their initial challenge when seeking leave by the court) to include further arguments; this despite having lost all their previous arguments in the landmark ruling last month by justice Humphreys – now stayed.
The hearing also was told that coroner Fee has also received (disclosures) more files to consider.
There is a well-founded and justified concern that this may well be a process to bog down the inquest. It’s all about running down the clock until May 1, when the British government’s controversial and self-serving legacy Act shuts down inquests, truth and justice, for thousands of families who had loved ones murdered.
Heaton-Harris has not challenged the ruling (yet) rather he’s using the tactic of seeking a stay and attempting to exert his political power, the latter backfiring spectacularly last week as witnessed in the correspondence with the PSNI chief.
Outside the court Eugene Thompson, Paul’s brother, said:
‘The British secretary of state is acting as if everyone here is rogue simply because he isn’t permitted to abuse his power to override the institutions of policing, criminal justice, and the rule of law when he can’t get his way.
‘There are three families that Heaton-Harris has centred in on in respect to gists and NCND – the Brown’s, McCusker’s and ourselves. It’s no coincidence these are high profile cases in which collusion exists. There’s a very clear pattern here of withholding information. And we want to know why?
‘Justice delayed is justice denied and from where I stand the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, is most certainly delaying the inquest into Paul’s murder.
‘We’ve waited three decades for this inquest to complete. That is unacceptable.
‘All families deserve the truth and open justice.’ ENDS
Watch this space for more news as we continue to support numerous families engaged in inquests.
