Victims see light at end of tunnel as judge to rule on Troubles pension logjam
VICTIMS seriously injured in the Troubles are hoping that Belfast High Court will today rule that Sinn Fein must stop blocking progress on a pension scheme.
Mr Justice Mcalinden is due to deliver his formal ruling in a case taken by Jennifer Mcnern, who lost her legs in the IRA’S 1972 Abercorn bomb.
She is challenging The Executive Office’s failure to nominate a Stormont department to administer the scheme due to Deputy First Minister Michelle O’neill refusing to sign off on the action.
Victims are hoping that the judge will either impose a “coercive” order forcing Mrs O’neill to do so. Or, if he makes a simple declaratory order, he will adjourn proceedings for a short period to see if the Deputy First Minister does act.
Ms Mcnern said: “We have been campaigning now for a decade. We are physically and emotionally exhausted. We hope Friday’s judgment will bring us nearer to the end of our journey.
“We need a time-frame for the implementation of the scheme. This cannot be allowed to drift.”
Ms Nern said she hoped that Mrs O’neill would respect the court’s ruling and implement it.
“I also hope that she will have listened to our stories in recent weeks and be moved to act compassionately. We don’t want sympathy, we want to be treated with respect and dignity. The Executive Office’s refusal to implement Westminster’s legislation has been absolutely devastating for us.”
During the judicial review Mr Justice Mcalinden accused the Deputy First Minister of subverting the rule of law for political ends.
The pension scheme is in limbo because Sinn Fein claims that the criteria for those who are eligible to apply potentially discriminates against some republicans with convictions from the Troubles.
Alan Mcbride, who lost his wife and father-in-law in the IRA’S 1993 Shankill bomb, said: “We want to see The Executive Office nominate a department, negotiate with the Treasury over funds, and then deliver the scheme.
“We want to see it open for applications as soon as possible, certainly by Christmas.
“Those with permanent life-limiting physical and psychological conditions have already waited far to long.” However, Andree Murphy of the victims’ group Relatives For Justice said the Westminster legislation “compounded conflict-era policies of criminalisation”.
She said: “The provisions regarding persons with convictions hide the violations which occurred in holding centres and prisons.
“Persons who suffer from physical or psychological injury as a result of systemic beatings, strip-searching and torture are excluded in the legislation.”
She expressed sadness that a “long overdue and long promised” pension scheme to “provide recognition and address need has instead become a scheme for political point-scoring and discrimination”.
Ms Murphy said that by requiring those bereaved to have been present at the scene of the killing was also unjust.
“This will affect women disproportionately,” she said. “Many women, for lots of reasons, were not at the scenes of killings.
“Some will speak of never having seen their dead child or husband because of well-meaning relatives and neighbours keeping them away from scenes.
“A total of 91% of those killed during the conflict were men and boys. There is an obvious gender discrimination if the bereaved are so actively excluded from this scheme.”
Ms Murphy added: “It is the duty of law-makers to protect the vulnerable.
“This legislation can still be changed to ensure that all of those who suffered physical and psychological injury, especially women bereaved, are included.”
During the judicial review hearing Mr Justice Mcalinden repeatedly indicated that Mrs O’neill was ignoring the rule of law.
“An argument in relation to who is entitled to compensation is being used as a reason to delay compliance with a statutory duty,” he said.
“In doing so individuals, who no one disputes are entitled to claim these pensions, such as Ms Mcnern who was blown up on March 4, 1972, losing both legs, she has to wait and be kept out of her pension because of a political dispute over who should and should not be entitled to these pensions.
“I cannot think of any other circumstances which would cry out more clearly for a declaration from the court of unlawful behaviour than this scenario.”