MRS Justice Denham said given this was a State with an educated and sophisticated electorate which had immediate access to information on the McKenna decision, she had no doubt the divisional court was correct in its determination.
The will of the people was expressed in the referendum. Mr Hanafin did not succeed in the divisional court in proving that by its conduct in the referendum the Government had affected materially the referendum as a whole.
The issues of fact were before the trial court. The divisional court considered the evidence as to whether the advertising campaign was such an interference and concluded it was not.
In her view it was more appropriate, in these important cases held by way of the petition process, to have a full inquiry when evidence may be offered by the respondents rather than cut the proceedings short. However that did not after the fundamental role of the court in this case.
The divisional court made a clear determination on fact which, was binding in law. Mrs Justice Denham said having considered, the transcript carefully, if it were necessary to reach a conclusion on fact, she would agree with the trial court.
The referendum process was for the benefit of the people to exercise their will. It was not a device to extend internal sovereignty, or the power of any organ of State.
In the interpretation of the Referendum Act 1994 and the construction of Section 43 (1)(b) and she was satisfied the words conduct of the referendum" had a wider meaning than the mere mechanics of the process.
A broad construction of the words, if there be an alternative construction, was that which was constitutional. The wider construction was that which protected the votes of the people in exercising their popular sovereignty by direct decision making through the referendum process.
Mrs Justice Denham said in this referendum, an unconstitutional activity was stopped during the campaign in the McKenna case, and there had been no bar tot Mr Hanafin's access to the courts at any time. Nor was there any lack of procedure for him, who, while not seeking access to the courts either before November 17th or between November 17th and 24th, 1995, had brought the petition before the courts.
It had already been decided the activities of the Government in spending public money to promote a particular result in the referendum was unconstitutional.
The jurisprudence regarding the role of the Supreme Court on issues of fact was quite clear. If the findings of fact made by the divisional court were supported by credible evidence, the Supreme Court was bound by them.