THE Attorney General will today begin an application to the High Court for dismissal of Mr Des Hanafin's challenge to the divorce referendum result.
Mr Dermot Gleeson SC told the three judge divisional court of the High Court yesterday that he wished to renew his application for dismissal. He was speaking after the conclusion of the evidence on behalf of Mr Hanafin.
On the second day of the hearing on January 12th last, the AG had applied to have the case dismissed. The court was reluctant to make such an order on the petition until all the evidence had been heard, and postponed its decision.
Mr Hanafin is seeking to over turn the result of the November 24th referendum on the grounds that the Government wrongly spent public money promoting the Yes campaign. He wants the court to order a new referendum.
Earlier yesterday, on the 10th day of the hearing, the Referendum Returning Officer, Mr Thomas Sexton, formally handed in to the court the Provisional Referendum Certificate containing the official result of the poll.
Mr Gordon Heald, a British expert who gave evidence on Friday on behalf of the petitioner, resumed in the witness box and `was cross examined by Mr Peter Shanley SC, for the State.
Mr Shanley asked him if he knew that the petitioner, Mr Hanafin, was the chairman of the Anti Divorce Campaign. Mr Heald said he did not think he did. He had heard it for the first, time that day.
He also acknowledged that he did not know who the main proponents in the No campaign were.
Questioned by Mr Justice Lynch as to the price of newspaper advertisements in the UK, Mr Heald said that he did not know how much they were.
Mr Shanley asked if he knew which political parties were in Government. Mr Heald replied Fine Gael, Labour and the PDs. He did not know the names of the leaders of the political parties.
Dr Cathal Brugha, lecturer in UCD, Faculty of Economics, said he had been on the national executive of Fianna Fail. Replying to Mr Peter Kelly SC, for Mr Hanafin, he said he had compared the referendums on divorce in 1986 and 1995.
Looking at the factors in both, one which stood out as different was the Government involvement on the Yes side. He would conclude that without that factor the referendum could have been lost by 7.5 per cent.