AN ATTEMPT to bring a number of legal challenges aimed at overturning the result of the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has been refused by the High Court which ruled the arguments advanced were political not legal.
Mr Justice Seán Ryan yesterday dismissed four separate applications for leave to challenge the constitutionality of the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009 brought about as a result of the majority Yes vote in the October 2nd referendum.
The judge said no compelling arguments had been made out for leave in any of the cases.
The challenges were brought by Harry Rea, Blarney Road, Co Cork; Nora Bennis, North Circular Road, Limerick; Mark McCrystal, Swords Road, Dublin, and Richard Behal, Killarney, Co Kerry.
All four made their applications personally without the assistance of lawyers and sought leave to seek declarations that the result of the referendum is null and void and the amendment itself is repugnant to the Constitution.
Among a series of claims, it was alleged the Government acted outside its jurisdiction by failing to put the “guarantees” obtained by it concerning the Lisbon Treaty before the Oireachtas prior to the referendum.
A number of arguments were also made about the status of those guarantees.
It was claimed there had been “a cynical deception” of the people and the Government had acted beyond its authority by involving the heads of other member states in their private capacity so as to create an internationally binding treaty affecting people’s fundamental rights and constitutional protections without obtaining their consent.
It was also argued that retaining the same title for the latest Bill was an attempt to eradicate the existence of the previous vote which the Government lost and “should have respected”.
Mr Justice Ryan ruled, in order to bring judicial review proceedings, a statable case must be made. While that threshold was low, “very compelling reasons” would have to be given to allow leave for a case to have “a solemn decision of the people” declared null and void.
Some of the arguments put forward, while “dressed up in constitutional language”, did not contain the required legal or constitutional points for judicial review and were densely political arguments, Mr Justice Ryan found.
While the applicants had made “a powerful argument” about why a particular attitude should be taken on how to vote in the referendum, there was no legal basis to justify judicial review.
A number of the points made were “not at all clear” and constituted “politics and not law”, Mr Justice Ryan said.
The judge also said some of the applications contained arguments which were more technical in nature, such as the argument in relation to the title of the amendment.
Others were more complex in their presentation, and were less easy to summarise, he added.
Mr Justice Ryan also rejected an earlier application by the four for an order granting them their costs of bring their case and any subsequent judicial review proceedings on the basis that the matter had been brought in the national interest and not for any personal benefit.
Following the judge’s decision, Mr Rea said he intended to appeal to the Supreme Court.