Landmark NI High Court ruling in McCabe case welcomed

The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Scoffield yesterday, found that the Board’s decision was unlawful and that its guidance on what constitutes a “Troubles-Related Incident” (TRI) was too restrictive. Both applications will now be reconsidered by a properly directed panel. Mr McCabe was shot in the leg in his Newry home by IRA gunmen and forced to flee Northern Ireland with his family, while his daughter, then a child, suffered significant trauma as a result of
witnessing the aftermath.

The court held that the Victims’ Payments Board erred in law by seeking to identify a single determinative reason for the attack, notwithstanding that the statutory test expressly permits the existence of multiple motivations; further, the court found that the Board’s guidance, insofar as it suggested that paramilitary punishment attacks could not qualify as Troubles-Related Incidents (“TRIs”), was impermissibly absolute and therefore legally flawed; and, finally, the court clarified that a paramilitary attack may properly constitute a TRI where a material reason for the violence
is connected to the organisation’s broader campaign, including its political or constitutional objectives.

The judgment therefore represents a major clarification of the law governing eligibility under the Troubles Permanent Disablement Payment Scheme.

The court’s findings have wider implications beyond the McCabe family. By rejecting an overly narrow interpretation of the statutory scheme, the ruling opens the door for many victims of so-called “punishment shootings and beatings” to have their cases reassessed on a correct legal basis.

Setanta Marley, solicitor for the applicants, said: “This is a profoundly important judgment, not just for the McCabe family who have been vindicated in their decades-long pursuit of justice, but for the hundreds, if not thousands, of other victims who suffered punishment shootings and beatings during the conflict.”

The case will now return to the Victims’ Payments Board for reconsideration in line with the court’s guidance. The Board must determine whether the attack qualifies as a TRI under thecorrect legal test, and, if so, proceed to assess eligibility in accordance with the scheme.