The relevant provision in the Regulations is:

Causation of injury

7.—(1) For the purpose of these Regulations, a person’s injury may only be considered to be caused by a Troubles-related incident if it is suffered by that person when— 

(a)present at a Troubles-related incident;

(b)present in the immediate aftermath of a Troubles-related incident in which a loved one died or suffered an injury;

(c)responding, in the course of employment, to a Troubles-related incident, in which the person reasonably believed a loved one had died or suffered significant injury.

(2) In this regulation— 

“employment” includes service of the Crown; 

“immediate aftermath” includes any time when a loved one is in the same condition as they would have been at the scene of the Troubles-related incident; 

“loved one” means another person with whom a person has a close relationship of love and affection, and such a relationship will be presumed to exist between— 

(a)

two people who are married to each other, or are civil partners, or live together as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners, and 

(b)

a parent and child; 

“responding to a relevant incident” includes preventing, mitigating, or otherwise addressing the incident. 

A number of media commentators including  Murphy and Morris have opined, wrongly, that an applicant has to be present at the scene of the incident. This mistake is being carried by the media and repeated by some lawyers, who should know better.

The “presence” rule was a feature of the old criminal injuries code.

The new scheme considerably widens the scope of who can apply for compensation. 

The Government response of January 2020 said:

1. Presence at incident 

Consultation Proposal 

• We proposed to include not only those injured psychologically by fear for their own safety at an incident, but also those with a diagnosable psychological injury caused by witnessing a loved one being injured or killed at the scene of an incident, or being present in the immediate aftermath of such an incident. 

Consultation Feedback 

• Some respondents to the consultation felt that we should not require presence at an incident, highlighting the impact that an incident may have had on others including families and carers after the event. We fully recognise the terrible impact of the Troubles on so many and it is vital that as a society that we do more to address that. And that is why provisions such as the Regional Trauma Network and increased funding for mental health in Northern Ireland are so vital. But this scheme cannot in itself meet all the psychological needs of the NI population, not least as so many households were impacted – in varying degrees – by the Troubles. 

Next Steps 

• We therefore intend that the scheme should pay those injured directly at an incident, or those with enduring psychological injury caused by direct perception of an incident in which a person with whom they had a close tie of love and affection was injured, those responding to an incident, and those who feared for themselves because of the incident. 
• Immediate aftermath would already include those injured who – for example – ran to help loved ones when they heard the explosion at the Cenotaph in Enniskillen, which a number of people raised in feedback. It can also include attending an injured person in hospital in the same condition that they were in at the scene of the incident shortly afterwards. The scheme must take an appropriately generous approach to what is considered to be the immediate aftermath of an incident. 

One hopes that this particular canard has run its course.