The High Court will give its decision on March 1st on the challenge by an environmentalist to the proposed route of the M3 motorway near the Hill of Tara.
After Mr Justice Thomas Smyth yesterday ruled that he did not require to hear oral evidence by archaeologists and other experts in order to determine legal issues in the case, the seven-day hearing concluded.
Counsel for Vincent Salafia had earlier argued that there were factual disputes in the case, particularly relating to whether the greater Tara area in itself constituted a national monument.
It was submitted that the court should hear oral evidence from experts on such matters and determine whether the greater Tara landscape was a national monument.
However, lawyers for the Minister for the Environment, the State, Meath County Council and the National Roads Authority argued that oral evidence was not necessary to determine the legal issues.
They submitted that none of Mr Salafia's experts had sworn on affidavit that any of 38 sites discovered during test trenching of the proposed M3 route constituted national monuments.
After hearing both sides, the judge said he had to ask himself whether oral evidence and cross-examination of experts would assist him in the determination of the identified issues in the case. The answer to that had to be no, he said.
While there were conflicting views and opinions by highly- qualified experts on both sides, those views were not focused on any issue which he must determine, he ruled.
These matters of opinion regarding the archaeological landscape, culture and heritage of the Tara area were extremely interesting, but he had to keep firmly focused on the issues.
He did not see that his decision not to permit oral evidence deprived Mr Salafia of any benefit in the case, the judge added.
Earlier, in closing arguments on behalf of Mr Salafia, Frank Callanan SC said the role of archaeological and other experts, including the director of the National Museum, had been "considerably diluted" under new laws enacted to deal with the discovery of national monuments during construction of a motorway.
The State had effectively argued in this case that it had no substantive obligation regarding conservation of the national heritage, he said.
