THE Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said that although the 1992 High Court injunction was lawfully granted at the time, it could not now be confirmed by the Supreme Court which had to have regard to the law as it was now and not as it was in 1992.
The constitutional and legal position about the provision of information regarding the termination of pregnancies had been altered by the provisions of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (1992) and the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies)Act, 1995.
Mr Justice Hamilton said lawyers for the students unions had submitted that the decision in the Open Door Counselling case, which was relied upon by Mr Justice Morris in the High Court case, was wrongly decided and should be departed from by the Supreme Court.
In that 1988 Supreme Court hearing, the then Chief Justice, Mr Justice Finlay, said he was satisfied beyond doubt that Open Door Counselling and another clinic were "assisting in the ultimate destruction of the life of the unborn by abortion in that they were helping pregnant women ... to get in touch with a clinic in Great Britain".
The then Supreme Court had granted a perpetual injunction restraining the clinics from so assisting pregnant women.
That 1988 Supreme Court judgment had dealt with the constitutional right to life of the unborn child and did not purport to deal with the equal right to life of the mother, the Chief Justice said.
But in 1992 the nature of the "equal right to life of the mother" did arise for interpretation in the case of the Attorney General versus X and Another.
That case established that termination of the life of the unborn was permissible in certain circumstances.
The Chief Justice said that having regard to the admitted activities of the defendants in the Open Door Counselling case and the students unions in the current proceedings, it was not open to them to rely on the right of a woman to obtain abortion information as a justification of such activities.
The students unions had claimed the Constitution protected the life of the mother which must encompass her having access to information where her life might be threatened by the continued pregnancy.
The Supreme Court had held that that right was vested in the mother when it considered the constitutionality of the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Bill 1995.
However, the admitted activities of the students unions in this case were not confined to the provision of such information.
The Chief Justice rejected the argument that the Open Door Counselling case was wrongly decided by the Supreme Court.
It was clear from the evidence that the service being provided by the students unions was not in any way confined to, or specifically directed towards, pregnant women who complied with the test in the X case.
The fact that abortion information was conveyed to pregnant women was unconstitutional and illegal; the manner of such communication or motives underlying such communication was irrelevant to the unconstitutional illegality of the act of communication.
The giving of the information in manuals was not confined to pregnant women.
The fact that the information might be given to a pregnant woman who complied with the test in the X case did not render lawful the activities of the students unions because their avowed intention was to distribute such information generally.
He agreed with Mr Justice Blayney's view that if the unions were committing criminal offences, then it was a matter for the Attorney General.