THE HIGH Court has refused an application by former Senator Des Hanafin to postpone the hearing of his legal challenge to the divorce referendum result.
Mr Justice Francis Murphy, the chairman of the three judge divisional court of the High Court which was set up to hear the appeal, said the matter was of such urgency that it could not accede to Mr Hanafin's application for an adjournment.
He said the obligations imposed on the court meant that the trial should begin as scheduled on Thursday next.
Mr Justice Murphy who sat with Mr Justice Robert Barr and Mr Justice Kevin Lynch, said the court would proceed with legal submissions which it envisaged would take some days. No oral evidence would be taken before next Tuesday.
Earlier Mr Peter Kelly SC, counsel for Mr Hanafin said he had been unable to fully prepare his case because of what he alleged was incomplete discovery of State documents.
Mr Hanafin is taking his action on the grounds that the result of the referendum had been materially affected because of the Government's expenditure to promote a Yes vote.
An earlier sitting of the court was told by Mr Kelly that the Government would claim that the courts had no jurisdiction to embark on the inquiry being sought by Mr Hanafin.
The State claimed that neither the Referendum Act 1994 nor the Constitution provided for such a challenge.
Mr Kelly had told the court that Mr Hanafin contended that the referendum was an interference by an unlawful expenditure of money by the Government in influencing a particular result.
It was a matter that had been adjudicated on by the Supreme Court in the McKenna case last November which held that the Government's activity was wrong, and unconstitutional in the use of public money.
Mr Kelly had said the State was denying there was obstruction, interference or irregularities in the conduct of the referendum. It also denied that the result was materially affected, or that the Government sought to influence the outcome by spending public monies.
Mr Kelly told the court that the trial date of January 11th had been set on the basis of full discovery having been made by December 13th. He said discovery had not been completed until December 20th and his client was now seeking further discovery of 11 State documents.
Mr Kelly said his client was employing a number of expert authorities from outside the jurisdiction and they would be unable to complete their reports until full documentation had been disclosed to them.
Postponement of the trial was opposed by the Attorney General, Mr Dermot Gleeson, SC who said full and proper discovery had been made by the State including any documentation It had on outside bodies involved in the referendum. He suggested the trial could begin on Thursday and the court could deal with the preliminary legal issues which would be raised by the State.