Two Separate Petitions to Challenge the Abortion Referendum Results Denied by the High Court

The President of the High Court refused two separate leave applications to bring petitions contesting the outcome of the abortion referendum.

Judge Peter Kelly also made an order stating that the result of the referendum can not come into effect for at least a week to allow Charles Byrne to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The judge ruled on Friday that neither Mr. Byrne nor Joanna Jordan had met the statutory criteria required by the Referendum Act before a court could allow the introduction of the law. ;a request.

can only be brought if the applicant has prima facie evidence of the facts likely to have a "significant" impact on the result of the referendum.

After making his first judgment by refusing Mr. Byrne's application, Mr. Byrne's lawyers sought to defer any official certification of the referendum result pending an appeal.

M . Judge Kelly agrees to make an order preventing the Master of the High Court from informing the Director of Referendum that the petition was denied

M. Byrne, piano teacher and musician, of College Rise, Drogheda, Co Louth and Mrs. Jordan, housewife, Upper Glenageary Road, Dun Laoghaire, has requested permission to present petitions.

The two allegedly irregularities in the conduct of the referendum and voter registration. They also complained about statements made by Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and Health Minister Simon Harris during the referendum campaign. The state stated that none of the issues raised met the criteria of a petition

M. Byrne also alleged that the Referendum Commission failed to fulfill its legal obligations with respect to the provision of fair and accurate information in its guide and website. The Commission rejected those requests.

In his judgment, Kelly J. stated that Mr. Byrne's complaints about the Commission's documents should be dismissed as "without merit or merit".

He also rejected allegations of unconstitutional conduct during the referendum campaign by the government, particularly the Taoiseach and the Minister of Health, advocating a Yes vote.

He rejected the arguments of duty imposed by Article 40.3.3 meant the right to life of the unborn child is something that all organs of government, including the judiciary, must support and no government minister could encourage a yes vote.

There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the government from campaigning to accept Mr. Byrne's argument would lead to the "bizarre" and "absurd" result of government ministers being totally silent on a referendum proposal that they introduced.

He dismissed Mr. Byrne's other complaints about "misrepresentations" made by the Taoiseach and the Minister of Health in the referendum.

The judge also denied Mr. Byrne's claims to have the right to petition alleged election irregularities, including irregularities in the ballots and the removal of persons from the register, and their restoration.

The material provided in support of these applications did not constitute prima facie evidence as required by the Referendum Act. He had shown that the allegations were likely to have a significant impact on the result. "Speculation is not a proof," he said

in the case of Ms. Jordan, the judge rejected his claims that the statements of the Minister of Health were of a nature to materially affect the outcome of the referendum. he ruled.

He was also satisfied that the alleged activity was not likely to materially affect the outcome of the referendum as a whole

. He rejected the arguments concerning alleged electoral irregularities.

Editors