The High Court is hearing the remainder of an application by Sinn Féin TD Pearse Doherty for a judicial review of statements made by the Referendum Commission during the fiscal treaty campaign.
Mr Doherty is arguing that the Referendum Commission made statements that he claims gave prominence to Yes arguments over No arguments in the campaign.
Mr Justice Gerard Hogan tonight told the court he proposed to give his ruling on the matter tomorrow morning at 10.30am. He said it would not be possible to put it in written form but would give a summary of what he had arrived at.
He would write a detailed judgement by June 6th, he added.
Senior Counsel for Sinn Féin TD Pearse Doherty, Richard Humphreys, told the court there was a difference between statements from the Referendum Commission delivered on May 3rd and May 18th.
Mr Humphreys described the difference as “subtle and minute from a distance” but once identified had a “gigantic effect” in terms of public understanding of the issue.
He said the original statement from the Referendum Commission was not accurate and was misleading, or at the most charitable incomplete.
The concept that it was too late for Ireland to veto the ratification of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) was “seized on by the media”, Mr Humphreys said.
He said the second statement from the Referendum Commission indicated it did not believe it was too late for Ireland to veto the European Council decision.
Mr Humphreys said that on the date the second statement was issued, the Referendum Commission chairman went on RTE Radio One’s Morning Ireland programme and was “reverting back to language that wouldn’t have been out of place in the first statement”.
He said it suited the Yes side in the fiscal treaty campaign to “pretend” they were in some way bound by the European Council decision.
Mr Justice Hogan said language of that kind made him uncomfortable and the venue for that kind of debate was outside of the chambers.
Later Mr Humphreys said one of the places the Referendum Commission's second statement appeared was on the Referendum Commission’s twitter feed, which he said was followed by 245 people or "0.09 per cent of the population".
Mr Justice Hogan said that on the other hand those were people with a deep seated interest in the matter, such as journalists and political representatives and others who were “fascinated by political debate”.
Mr Humphreys said his contention was that the notion that the Referendum Commission could satisfy its obligations by a tweet was a far-fetched proposition. The advantage of a press release was that it went to the organs of public opinion.
Senior Counsel for the Referendum Commission Michael Collins told the Court Deputy Doherty’s application was fundamentally misconceived. He said there was no inconsistency between two statements of May 3rd and May 18th. He also said there was nothing wrong with the May 3rd statement.
He described Mr Doherty's argument as an "utterly untenable and flawed proposition".
The hearing is continuing.