MR Justice Blayney said he could not see any ground on which the Supreme Court could interfere with the decision of the Divisional Court of the High Court.
He said the High Court, having heard all the evidence called by Mr Hanafin, held unanimously that the Government's advertising campaign had not materially affected the result of the referendum.
It was clear from the judgment of the Divisional Court members that they did not accept the opinion evidence on which Mr Hanafin's case was based. Their decision in that regard could not be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
It was entirely a matter for the Divisional Court members to decide what evidence they accepted and what they rejected. Once they rejected the only evidence which was possible for Mr Hanafin to put forward in support of this essential element in proving his case, it was inevitable the petition had to be dismissed.
And since the Supreme Court would not interfere with the decision of the Divisional Court on this fundamental part of the case, it followed that the appeal could not succeed.
Mr Justice Blayney said another question raised was if the Government advertising campaign using public funds was an interference in "the conduct of the referendum" within Section 43 (1b) of the Referendum Act.
When one had to determine whose conduct of the referendum, was in question when that phrase was used, he thought it reason able to conclude it was the local returning officer's rather than the referendum returning officer's.
Having regard to the nature of the referendum returning officer's functions under the Act, it was clear the Government's advertising campaign could not have constituted any interference with his functions and, accordingly, could not have constituted any interference with his conduct of the referendum.
He said he was satisfied the advertising campaign amounted to an interference with the conduct of the referendum by the local returning officers.