MR Justice Blayney said that because of the change in the law since the decision in the High Court in 1992 he would allow the appeal to the extent of lifting the injunction.
The judge said, however, that he was satisfied that the decision when given in the High Court was correct. In considering whether the injunction granted by the High Court judge should be confirmed or not, the Supreme Court must look at what the present state of the law was in regard to providing information here about abortion services in the UK and not at what it was at the time the proceedings commenced.
There had been two significant changes in the law since August 1992. First, there had been the 14th Amendment of the Constitution dealing specifically with the right to make information available, and second, the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Act, 1995, was passed on May 12th, 1995, and laid down the conditions which must be observed in the giving of information.
Having carefully considered the relevant law as it now was, and counsel's submissions, the conclusion he had reached was that the Supreme Court should not continue the injunction granted by the High Court judge.
He said the appellants, the students, were either complying with the conditions set out in the 1995 Act or they were not.
"If they are complying with those conditions, they are protected by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. If they are not complying with them, they are committing criminal offences and the only party who has the right to obtain an injunction against them is the Attorney General," Mr Justice Blayney said.
As a result of the 14th Amendment and the passing of the 1995 Act, the legal position had been wholly altered since the proceedings were instituted. At that time the appellants' activities were unlawful as being in breach of the constitutional right to life of the unborn, but they were not criminal.
At the present time, their activities were either lawful or criminal and whichever it was they could not be restrained by SPUC. Since the Supreme Court, in considering whether an injunction should be granted, must look at the law as it is now, and not as it was when the proceedings were commenced, he was satisfied that the injunction granted by the High Court judge could not be continued and he would allow the appeal to the extent of lifting the injunction.