MR Justice Barrington doubted if, after the X case, the Supreme Court would grant an injunction in such wide terms since it would be conscious it might deny to a mother in the position of the X case mother the right to receive information to which she might otherwise be entitled.
The judge said the issue in the Open Door case was between the right to life of the unborn and the right of freedom of expression of the defendants.
Between these two rights he believed the Supreme Court in 1988 was correct to prefer the right to life of the unborn even if this meant restricting the freedom of expression of the defendants.
No issue arose in that case as to the right to life of the mother, but it was true, as Mrs Justice Denham said in her judgment, that there was nothing like a hard case for illustrating the implications and the limitations of a principle of constitutional law. They all had a better understanding of the constitutional provisions as a result of the decision in the X case, but this raised the problem of whether it was wise to limit debates in such law cases.
It may be true that the students like the defendants in the Open Door case claimed a general right to disseminate information.
"I doubt if this court would now, after the X case, grant an injunction in such wide terms conscious that such an injunction might have the "effect of denying to a mother in the position of the mother in the X case the right to receive information to which she might otherwise be entitled," he said.
It therefore appeared to him that the injunction granted in the High Court must be modified, but he agreed with the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Blayney that the situation had been changed by virtue of the provisions of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State for the Termination of Pregnancies) Act 1995.
"If and insofar as the activities of the defendants, the students, were covered by the 14th Amendment they were lawful and could not be restrained. If and insofar as their activities violate the provisions of the legislation, they can be prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions or restrained by an injunction obtained by the Attorney General," he said. He would discharge the injunction.