A former Northern Ireland police ombudsman has condemned the UK Government’s decision to withhold files relating to the 1981 killing of 15-year-old Paul Whitters in Londonderry, stating there is “no justification” for their continued secrecy.
Paul was struck on the head by a plastic baton round fired by a Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer during unrest in Derry. He succumbed to his injuries ten days later. Despite his family’s persistent efforts, the confidential file on his case remains heavily redacted, leaving them “no wiser” about the circumstances surrounding his death.
Baroness Nuala O’Loan, a crossbench peer and Northern Ireland’s first police ombudsman, revealed that a 93-page file on the incident is classified and will not be available to the public until 2084—more than a century after Paul’s death. Speaking in the House of Lords, she called for transparency, having personally reviewed the documents.
“I have read those files,” she stated. “There is no justification for withholding them.”
A pattern of withholding information
Baroness O’Loan also referenced the case of 14-year-old Julie Livingstone, who was fatally shot by a plastic bullet from a British Army Land Rover in 1981. The Government has locked her case files until 2054.
She argued that withholding such information only deepens distrust in the state:
“A post-conflict society must be built on the rule of law. People distrust institutions perceived to be biased or controlled by the Government, most particularly by individuals from the security services. If people repeatedly find out that information is being withheld or distorted, they will know that they are not being allowed to know, and distrust will grow.”
O’Loan acknowledged the vital work of the security services but maintained that national security concerns are often used as a shield to prevent accountability. She insisted that the contents of these files, however distressing, should be released:
“It may be said that the contents may be distressing for the families. But there is nothing more distressing than losing a loved one, especially a child, to a violent death.”
Personal tragedy and a call for transparency
Baroness O’Loan’s stance is underscored by her own tragic experience. In 1977, she survived an IRA bombing at Ulster Polytechnic in Jordanstown while pregnant, but the attack caused her to lose her unborn child.
She has now urged the Government to establish an independent commission to review classified Troubles-related files and determine whether any genuine national security concerns warrant their continued suppression.
“There must be a process to assess whether these documents truly pose a security risk or if they are simply being withheld to protect individuals and institutions from scrutiny,” she insisted.
Government facing increasing legal challenges
The Government is also under mounting pressure over other high-profile Troubles-related cases. This includes the 1997 killing of Sean Brown by loyalist paramilitaries and the 1994 murder of Liam Paul Thompson. Legal battles continue over whether a public inquiry should be held into Brown’s case and whether a summary of the evidence concerning Thompson’s murder should be disclosed.
Additionally, the families of 26 victims linked to the British agent codenamed ‘Stakeknife’ are still awaiting reports from Operation Kenova—documents that were submitted to MI5 in August 2023 but have yet to be released.
Lady O’Loan accused the Government of deliberately suppressing material that could expose state complicity in violent acts:
“There is a very clear picture of a determination to control robustly the possibility of the emergence of material damaging to the UK. It is suspected, because it has proved to be the case in the past, that this evidence may include warnings not issued, police investigations being obstructed, and murderers—particularly state agents—being permitted to carry on murdering even when they had confessed to their crimes.”
More Read
Accusations of cover-up and political fallout
The issue has ignited political debate, with some peers supporting O’Loan’s call for disclosure, while others, particularly from the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), argue that Troubles-era inquests have disproportionately targeted British security forces.
Baroness Hoey, an unaffiliated peer, and several DUP members suggested that reopening such cases could be seen as an attempt to “re-write history” by focusing primarily on state actions rather than the broader violence committed by paramilitary groups.
Despite the controversy, Lady O’Loan remained steadfast in her belief that truth and accountability must take precedence:
“These cases are over 25 years old. The families want to see the information held by the state in relation to these murders. The Government, through its agencies, is refusing to release the material.”
As legal challenges intensify, and families continue their fight for transparency, the pressure on the Government to justify its stance—or reconsider it—appears unlikely to subside.
