The High Court in Belfast has quashed two decisions by the Victims' Payments Board that denied payments to a man shot in the knee by members of the Provisional IRA at his home in 1990, and to his daughter who witnessed the aftermath. Mr Justice Scoffield found the appeal panel made a legal error by focusing on identifying a single dominant reason for the attack rather than considering whether any one of multiple possible reasons qualified under the statutory definition.

The case was brought by Peter McCabe and his daughter Jeanitta McCabe, who submitted applications to the Board in November 2021. According to Peter McCabe's affidavit, four or five masked men entered the family home on 13 September 1990 shortly before 11pm. The men identified themselves as acting on behalf of the Provisional IRA and told him he had 24 hours to leave Ireland. One of the men then shot McCabe in his left knee. A second shot was fired but ricocheted off a typewriter McCabe had grabbed as a shield. McCabe was taken to Daisy Hill Hospital, where he made a statement to police. Two days later he discharged himself, stating he feared he would be killed if he did not comply. The family relocated to Great Britain before returning to Northern Ireland approximately five years later. Jeanitta McCabe, aged 10 at the time, states she did not see the shooting but witnessed its immediate aftermath.

The Board's appeal panel, in decisions issued on 19 December 2023, found that the attack was most likely a vigilante-style reprisal linked to Peter McCabe's criminal record and did not qualify as a Troubles-related incident under section 10(11) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. That provision defines a Troubles-related incident as one involving an act of violence carried out for a reason related to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland or to political or sectarian hostility between people there. The panel accepted the basic facts of the incident as described but concluded it could not establish on the balance of probabilities that the attack met that definition.

Scoffield J held that this approach was wrong in law. The judge found that the statutory phrase "for a reason related to" did not require a single qualifying reason to be identified as the sole or dominant motivation. Provided at least one material reason for the violence was sufficiently connected to the statutory hallmarks of the Troubles, eligibility could in principle be established. The panel's written determination repeatedly sought to identify "the reason" for the attack rather than assessing whether any one of several possible reasons could qualify. The judge concluded this represented a legal error that infected both decisions.

The judgment also addressed guidance issued by the Board's President on 23 November 2023, which stated that vigilante-style paramilitary attacks carried out in a purported policing function "cannot and should not" be regarded as Troubles-related incidents. Scoffield J found that statement to go too far. While he accepted that such attacks do not automatically qualify, he held it was legally wrong to say they can never qualify. A vigilante-style attack could meet the statutory definition where the Board was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that at least one material reason for the attack related to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland or to political or sectarian hostility. The judge found the guidance was not saved by the fact that panel chairs are legally qualified, noting the guidance was expressed in clear and absolute terms and was intended to ensure consistency across all panels.

On the question of how closely related a reason must be to the Troubles hallmarks, the court held the phrase "related to" was designed to give the definition a relatively expansive rather than restricted meaning, and that a particularly close connection was not required. The judge drew on a 2024 coroner's ruling in the Raymond McCord Junior Inquest, which applied similar statutory language in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, as providing some support for a broad reading of the relevant phrase.

The panel decisions have been quashed and remitted to a fresh appeal panel of the Board for determination in accordance with the judgment. Scoffield J noted that Peter McCabe has a significant criminal record totalling 67 convictions, and indicated that if a reconstituted panel finds the incident was a Troubles-related incident, it may then need to consider provisions under Regulation 6 of the Victims' Payments Regulations 2020, which allow the Board to assess whether a claimant's own conduct makes entitlement to payments inappropriate. On the guidance, the judge indicated he would allow time for the Board to consider whether to appeal the decision or voluntarily amend the relevant portions of the information note before determining what formal remedy to grant.