A Co Down man subjected to an IRA punishment-style shooting has secured High Court permission to challenge the refusal of a victim’s payment.
Peter McCabe and his daughter Jeanitta, who witnessed the immediate aftermath of the attack, were both granted leave to seek a judicial review of decisions to deny them compensation.
They claim the Victims’ Payment Board unlawfully deemed them ineligible because the incident was not defined as Troubles-related.
Mr Justice Scoffield ruled: “The arguments advanced by the applicants are sufficient to warrant the case being addressed at a full hearing.”
Mr McCabe was shot in the leg after masked men entered the family’s home in Newry back in September 1990.
A second round was fired at him but deflected off a typewriter he had lifted to shield himself.
The gunmen declared that they were from the IRA and told him he had 24 hours to leave Ireland.
Mr McCabe stated he feared being killed if he disobeyed and relocated with his family to Britain.
They lived in exile at bed and breakfast houses throughout England and Scotland before returning to Northern Ireland five years later, the court was told.
In 2021 Mr McCabe applied to the Troubles Permanent Disability Payment Scheme - set up to provide financial support for those living with physical or psychological injuries sustained as a result of the conflict in Northern Ireland.
His daughter Jeanitta also sought a payout for the trauma she suffered as a 10-year-old child present at the scene of the shooting.
But the board which oversees the scheme turned down both applications on the basis it was not established to be a Troubles-Related Incident (TRI).
Under its guidance, some punishment attacks carried out by paramilitary vigilantes have been classed as ineligible for payments if the incidents are not linked to issues around Northern Ireland’s constitutional status or political/sectarian hostility.
Lawyers for the McCabe family claim the board has wrongly interpreted what qualifies as a TRI and created a “hierarchy” of punishment.
Alleging the guidance is irrational, breaches their human rights and unlawfully thwarts a legislative purpose, they are seeking an order to have it quashed.
In his ruling Mr Justice Scoffield observed: “The question is whether a paramilitary attack on an individual for reasons which amount to vigilantism for some perceived offence… can be related to the Troubles.”
The father and daughter also relied on a separate decision by a coroner sitting in the inquest into the loyalist paramilitary murder of Belfast man Raymond McCord Jr in November 1997.
That determination dealt with the meaning of TRIs in the context of the 2023 Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy Act.
Despite expressing some concerns about the relevance of a separate legislative scheme, Mr Justice Scoffield held that an arguable case had been established on some grounds of challenge.
He confirmed: “There are issues in this case which warrant (further) argument.”
A full hearing is expected to take place sometime early next year.
Speaking outside court, a solicitor representing the father and daughter highlighted the significance of the case.
Michael Clements of KRW Law said: “We are very pleased that our clients’ important challenge to the board’s decision making, regarding the definition of a troubles related incident, can proceed to a substantive hearing.
“We are conscious, throughout the course of this challenge, that it will have a profound impact on a wide range of applications and applicants to the scheme.”