Sinn Féin today continued a legal fight to be awarded a publicly-funded grant to help with its election policies.
The Electoral Commission has refused to award the money, amounting to over £100,000 Stg, because the party refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen.
A judicial review challenging this decision was brought by Michelle Gildernew, Sinn Fein MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, earlier this year. But Mr Justice Coghlin's judgment upheld the Commission's decision.
The funding is to assist with long-term policy development, and can be given to parties with at least two MPs. As Sinn Féin is excluded, the UUP,DUP and SDLP share the money, receiving £133,920 Stg each. They would receive less if Sinn Fein was awarded its share.
In the Appeal Court in Belfast today the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Carswell, sitting with Lords Justice McCollum and Campbell, heard an appeal against the decision.
Seamus Treacey, QC, for Sinn Féin, said it was 'the only political party in the UK being required to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen which is repugnant to their political philosophy.'
He contended that the party was being deliberately excluded from the funding. No other state assistance of this kind, such as the right to free postage, broadcasting and use of rooms was subject to this pre-condition, he said.
'Sinn Féin was previously excluded from the offices and facilities in the House of Commons but that has been changed,' he added. 'The contribution to democracy is not confined to the floor of the House of Commons. The amount of time spent on the floor of the House of Commons by Northern Ireland MPs is actually relatively small.'
The Lord Chief Justice observed: 'Maybe it should be more.'
Mr Treacey said that people voted for Sinn Fein knowing that they were an absentionist party who would not take the oath. 'We are now in a situation where Sinn Fein taxpayers are compelled to contribute to a scheme of public funding from which Sinn Féin has been excluded.'
For the Commission Mr Dermot Morgan, QC, said: 'There is not a shred of evidence to indicate to what extent this political party is affected at all by its non-participation in this funding. It doesn't tell us anything about its funding or the amount being spent on policy development. If there is an interference with freedom of expression it must be of such enormity that it speaks for itself.'
Judgment was reserved.