The Supreme Court today heard an appeal by the Minister for Health and the State against the High Court's refusal to allow them call detailed evidence about the health effects of smoking and the impact of advertising of tobacco products.
The State wants to call the evidence during the forthcoming hearing of a legal challenge by tobacco companies and others to tough new legislation restricting advertising of tobacco products.
The State contends this evidence is necessary for the court to hear when considering the State's argument that the legislation is justified and proportionate.
The High Court had ruled earlier this year that, in light of certain admissions by the companies, there was no need for the State to call extensive oral evidence regarding the effects of tobacco on public health in the challenge.
In his High Court decision, Mr Justice Kelly said it could not be said that the plaintiff tobacco companies had not admitted the health effects of smoking and/or exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
"In my view, it would be a waste of public time and money to permit the adducing of unnecessary evidence," he said.
He directed that areas specifically admitted in the reply of the companies, made for the purposes of the legal proceedings only, may not be the subject of evidence being led, including the nature of tobacco and its health effects.
However, in moving the State's appeal against that ruling today, Mr Patrick Hanratty SC argued the admissions, while they were fine and useful as far as they went, they didn't go that far.
There was no admission in relation to the extent of the adverse consequences of smoking.
His side wanted to take the medical evidence further than was set out in the admissions and also wanted to call evidence specific to the position in Ireland including evidence relating to the effects of passive smoking on children and links between smoking and underweight babies.
The State also wanted to call evidence to support its arguments that advertisements cause people to smoke and deter them from quitting, Mr Hanratty added.
Opposing the appeal, Mr Dermot Gleeson SC said there was a total confusion of constitutional roles at the heart of what the State was proposing.
The Constitution required that laws be delivered on the basis of representative democracy while the courts were set up to adjudicate, on their individual facts, disputes which individual citizens may have with the State.