RTE did not act in breach of its statutory duty to be fair and impartial in its broadcast treatment of the divorce referendum campaign of 1995 and there is no evidence of any intention by the station to breach that duty in future referenda, the High Court has been told.
RTE has asked the court not to grant several orders and declarations relating to the treatment of the divorce referendum and to a decision by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission dismissing complaints regarding aspects of RTE's coverage of that referendum.
The declarations are being sought by Mr Anthony Coughlan, a senior lecturer in social policy at Trinity College, Dublin, and former secretary of the now disbanded Campaign for Fair Referenda, in judicial review proceedings before Mr Justice Carney. Mr Coughlan has taken the proceedings against RTE, the BCC and the Attorney General. The case opened last week and concluded yesterday. Judgment has been reserved.
The action relates to RTE's use of uncontested party political and other broadcasts during the 1995 divorce referendum and the BCC's decision of March 19th 1997 dismissing a complaint by Mr Coughlan concerning that coverage. Mr Coughlan is seeking declarations that the BCC misinterpreted and/or misconstrued Sections 18 (1) and 18 (2) of the Broadcasting Authority Act in reaching its decision.
He is seeking further declarations that RTE's decision to limit party political broadcasts in the 1995 divorce referendum to established parties and not to consider other political parties or groups involved in the referendum campaign exceeded RTE's powers under the Broadcasting Acts.
The court has also been asked to declare that RTE, if allocating party political broadcasts in future referenda, must allocate such broadcasts in a fair and impartial manner.
In court yesterday Ms Mary Finlay SC, for RTE, submitted that the court must determine that the decision of the BCC dismissing Mr Coughlan's complaint must exhibit an identifiable error of law before it might be interfered with by the court.
She said the BCC was limited to investigating and deciding on a specific complaint and had no jurisdiction to make the general findings sought by Mr Coughlan.
Reserving judgment on the proceedings, Mr Justice Carney told counsel, in an apparent reference to the planned referendum on the new EU Treaty, that he would not be "looking over his shoulder at Amsterdam or anything else".