A man who lost both legs in a so-called punishment shooting may not get a penny of the £475,000 sterling his injuries have been assessed at, a court heard yesterday.
For the Northern Ireland Office's compensation agency is denying liability, said a lawyer. Mr Andrew Peden, formerly from Glencairn Way, north Belfast, appealed the agency's decision that he was not entitled to payment because he was involved in activities and with individuals which could have led to the shotgun blast which crippled him.
His lawyer Brian Fee QC, said at Belfast County Court: "His life has been ruined by what has been done to him. Compensation has been agreed at £475,000 sterling but the matter of liability has to be resolved." Mr Peden (37), who now lives at Carrickfergus, Co Antrim, arrived at court in a wheelchair along with his wife Linda. He said in evidence that he was walking home in May 1998, when he was dragged into a car and beaten.
He said he was taken to a house and attacked with an iron bar. "The next thing I remember was waking up in hospital. My wife or a nurse told me I had only one leg. The other one was amputated later," he said.
Mr Fee said it transpired Mr Peden was tortured all day after his abduction. He was then taken to waste ground at Forthriver Road and shot in both legs. Asked why he was shot, Mr Peden said: "When I was in hospital people told me that a man I gave a lift to the previous evening was in the UDA and his wife was having an affair with a UVF man.
"It is probably a case of me being in the wrong place at the wrong time." During cross-examination by Patrick Lyttle QC, it was suggested to Mr Peden that he knew the real reason for the shooting was that he had been suspected of involvement in beating up the UVF man.
"Why didn't you tell the police that," asked Mr Lyttle. "I don't know," replied Mr Peden. He agreed that he had been questioned by police about the sectarian murder of Conor Maguire in north Belfast in 1992. "I was released without charge and have never been involved with paramilitaries," he said.
Mrs Linda Peden said in cross-examination that when she filled in her husband's compensation claim she was aware of rumours that he had been shot because he was suspected of involvement in the beating of the UVF man. Despite this, she agreed she stated on the form that the shooting was a "random sectarian attack." Mr Lyttle told Judge Derek Rodgers he should throw out the appeal because it was the agency's case the Pedens were lying. "The law imposes a requirement to make a full and true disclosure and as that has not been done the appeal must fail," he said.
Mr Fee submitted Mr Peden could not be criticised, let alone lose his compensation, on the grounds of non-disclosure. Judge Rodgers reserved judgement.