MR CONOR Quinn and Mr Fergus Finlay will not be called to give evidence in the challenge to the divorce referendum. This was agreed yesterday between the two sides in the case, Mr Des Hanafin and the State.
The agreement relates to certain facts and will reduce the numbers of documents and of witnesses to be called.
Mr Quinn is an advertising executive and brother of the Minister for Finance, Mr Ruairi Quinn. Mr Finlay is an adviser to the Tanaiste, Mr Spring.
The possibility that Mr Quinn and Mr Finlay might be called was raised in the court last Wednesday. Quinn McDonnell Pattison (QMP), of which Mr Quinn is joint managing director, was given the contract to draw up a strategy for the Government's advertising campaign for a Yes vote in the divorce referendum.
Yesterday the three judges of the divisional court of the High Court were told by the Attorney General, Mr Dermot Gleeson SC, that Mr Hanafin and the State had agreed on certain facts.
He said he understood from the petitioner's side that Mr Jack Jones of the polling firm MRBI, and other specialists, would be called. But other witnesses would not. He said this would shorten the proceedings considerably.
Mr Gleeson then read out a statement in which the State admitted certain facts. The State contended that no evidence of any opinion poll, other than the fact that the opinion poll was taken, was either admissible in evidence or relevant.
Mr Hanafin contended that the results of the polls (and the commentaries furnished by the polling organisation on them) were both relevant and admissible.
Reading the statement, Mr Gleeson said that MRBI was retained by the Department of Equality and Law Reform in March 1995 to conduct a survey to ascertain the form of divorce proposal which was most likely to be acceptable to the electorate. The Government then decided on the form of the amendment.
The Government admitted that, following a tendering process properly conducted, QMP was returned to advise on and conduct an advertising campaign to promote a Yes vote. The campaign proposal was contained in a QMP document of June 1995. The proposal was not fully implemented.
Civil Service personnel and resources were used in planning and running the Yes campaign both before and after October 19th, 1995. This included the setting up of a Divorce Referendum Information Unit in the Department, with civil servants being seconded from within and outside the Department.
Representatives of Government political parties, including some temporary civil servants on occasions, met representatives of the Divorce Action Group and the Right to Remarry Campaign from October 5th, 1995, to exchange information and co ordinate their efforts. The Government Information Service gave assistance.
Public money expended on the Government's Yes campaign included the following sums: £28,864 was paid to the Council for the Status of Women (CSW) in two instalments. The first was for £20.969 on September 10th, 1994, and the second for £7,895 on May 25th, 1995, for expenditure incurred by the CSW between January and September 1994 on a campaign to promote a Yes vote.
Another sum was for £400 to reimburse the Irish Countrywomen's Association for the hire of rooms for four public seminars on the referendum in June 1995.
A sum of £290.29 was paid by the Department for a lunch hosted by the Department in the Hibernian Hotel, Dublin, to discuss the referendum with journalists.
Polls were conducted in 1995 by MRBI for the Department from March 7th to 11th, October 20th to 21st, and on November 3th, Mr Gleeson said.
Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for Mr Hanafin, confirmed that the statement had been agreed between the parties.
Earlier the president of the divisional court, Mr Justice Murphy, said that members of the public should not write to the judges regarding the case. He said judges were not available for comment and would not accept any representations from anybody.
The hearing was adjourned until next Tuesday.