THE Supreme Court will announce today whether the decision of the divorce referendum should stand, allowing divorce legislation to be introduced, whether there should be a new referendum, or if further legal clarification is needed.
The judges of the Supreme Court will give their decision, reserved last February, on an appeal by Mr Des Hanafin against a High Court decision that the referendum result should not be overthrown.
He had sought it on the grounds that the unconstitutional expenditure of Government money on advertising made the result invalid.
Mr Hanafin made two arguments that the expenditure on advertising constituted an "obstruction of or interference with . . . the conduct of the referendum", and that the advertising materially affected the outcome of the referendum, which was an extremely narrow victory for the Government proposal.
The High Court found that advertising expenditure, even if illegal, did not amount to the obstruction or interference with the conduct of the referendum, which it interpreted as the mechanics of the vote rather than the campaign.
It also found that Mr Hanafin failed to prove that the advertising affected specific voters to the extent that one could be certain the result would have been different without it.
The High Court did not find it necessary to call on the State to give evidence to counter either of the arguments made by Mr Hanafin.
The Supreme Court can uphold the High Court decision. That will then be the end of the road for Mr Hanafin and his campaign to prevent the introduction of divorce into this State.
That would mean that the Minister for Equality and Law Reform can at last introduce his Divorce Bill, setting out the terms and conditions for obtaining a divorce. While it can be amended, it will become law in some form.
Or the Court can find in favour of Mr Hanafin. If it finds that the expenditure was "an obstruction or interference", then there will have to be a new referendum. However, legal sources feel this is unlikely.
Less unlikely is a finding that Mr Hanafin's contention that the expenditure of £500,000 must have influenced at least half of one per cent of the electorate to vote for the proposal, thereby bringing in a majority for the Yes side, was not disproved. This would mean the case being referred back to the High Court for further consideration, with the Government required to give evidence that its advertising did not materially affect the outcome of the vote.
Whatever decision emerged from these further deliberations would, of course, be subject to further appeal by either side to the Supreme Court.