COURT CHALLENGE:THE SUPREME Court has rejected an attempt to prevent today's referendums from proceeding. The three applicants had appealed to the Supreme Court against a decision earlier yesterday by the president of the High Court refusing their application for an injunction to halt the referendums. Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns ruled they had established no basis in law for such orders.
Harry Rea (56), Blarney Road, Cork city; Mark McCrystal (41), Lucan, Co Dublin; and Cornelius Cagney (69), Naas, Co Kildare, had claimed that article 46.4 of the Constitution prohibited two “proposals” being put on the same day before the people. They also claimed proper procedures were not followed as the Minister for Justice had published the date of the referendum in August in advance of the amendments going before the Dáil and the Seanad.
Dismissing the appeal, the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Susan Denham, giving the ruling of the five-judge court, said there was nothing in article 46.4 to prevent more than one proposal being put to the people on the same day.
There was also no basis for the claim that proper procedures were not followed.
In submissions to the High Court, Mr Rea had argued that former president Éamon de Valera had said, before two proposals could be put on the same day, that there would have to be a referendum to amend article 46.
Mr Rea also argued “no one knows what’s going on” about the referendums, which concern judicial pay and the rights of the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries.
In his decision, Mr Justice Kearns said the applicants were seeking to restrain the holding of the referendums on two issues based on their claim that article 46 contained a prohibition on two proposals being dealt with on the same day. There was also an argument that the public could not be expected to “get their heads around” two things on the one day, he said. Having carefully read article 46.4, which provides that a Bill containing a “proposal” to amend the Constitution shall contain no other proposal, he was satisfied the applicants had misconstrued the provision.
