Experts have been engaged to assess the effect of alleged overspending by some candidates in the last general election on the outcome of the results in two constituences, Cork South Central and Wicklow, the High Court was told yesterday.
The results in those two constituencies are being challenged by Ms Kathy Sinnott and Mr Nicky Kelly, who failed to get elected in Cork South Central and Wicklow respectively.
As the legal proceedings by the two have no precedent under modern electoral legislation, Mr Justice Kelly said yesterday that no rules of court existed for the hearing of the petitions. He fixed July 16th for the hearing of a motion on how the petitions should progress to an early hearing.
Ms Sinnott and Mr Kelly are seeking similar declarations - that the elections held in Cork South Central and Wicklow are void and and consequently that the court should order new elections to be held.
In the case of Ms Sinnott, she is asking the court to decide that the Minister for Health and Children, Mr Martin, Mr Simon Coveney, Mr Dan Boyle, Mr Batt O'Keeffe and Mr John Dennehy were not duly elected or returned and therefore the election is void.
In the Wicklow constituency, Mr Kelly is seeking similar decisions on TDs Mr Joe Jacob, Mr Dick Roche, Mr Billy Timmons, Ms Mildred Fox and Ms Liz McManus.
Mr John Rogers SC, for Ms Sinnott and Mr Kelly, said the petition had been served on all the deputies, along with the Minister for Environment, Clerk of the Dáil, the Returning Officers for each constituency, and the DPP.
Counsel for the Attorney General said a decision had yet to be made on whether he should be represented at the hearing of the petitions.
Mr Rogers said it did not appear the Attorney General was a necessary party.
Counsel said his clients had applied for leave to bring the petitions two weeks from the filing of a report of the expenditure of all candidates in the election was placed before the Houses of the Oireacthas.
An analysis of the material was necessary and the matter had been put in the hands of experts with a view, not simply to show that there was an overspend, but that the overspend had an effect on the outcome of the election.
Mr Rogers said it did appear that there had been a clear overspend in Wicklow. In Cork there appeared to be prima-facie evidence of an overspend, having made rational deductions or inferences. That was the difference between the two cases.
Mr Justice Kelly directed service of next Wednesday's motion on all the relevant parties.