Government spending of public money on an information campaign on the Children’s Referendum was not fair, impartial or equal, the Supreme Court ruled today. 
The court held that the information in leaflets and on a website produced by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs did not conform to the required principles laid down by the McKenna judgment, which prohibits the use of public funds to promote a particular outcome in a referendum, according to RTE.
The vote is set to go ahead this Saturday.
The court ruled that extensive passages in the Department booklet and on the website did not conform to these principles. It also ruled that the material included a misstatement.
It granted a declaration that the State acted wrongfully in spending public money on the website, information booklets and advertisements in relation to the referendum.
However, it did not grant an injunction as the court assumed the State will stop distributing and publishing the material.
The case was taken by Mark McCrystal of Kilbarrack Road in Dublin who claimed the Government was wrongly using €1.1m of public funds to promote a Yes vote, something which was not allowed under the McKenna Judgment.
Minister for Justice Alan Shatter said the Government has to view the detailed reasoning of the Supreme Court, which will be available on 11 December. He was speaking on News at One on RTE.
Following the ruling, journalist and No campaigner John Waters said that the Children’s Referendum would be a “breach of natural justice”.
Speaking on the same programme, Mr Waters said the Government had misappropriated public money in breach of the McKenna Judgment, and if there was a Yes vote, it would be “contaminated”.
He added that in seeking to change the Constitution, the Government had behaved unconstitutionally.
Meanwhile Supreme Court judge Catherine McGuinness has attacked the No campaign by saying they either have “personal axes to grind” or are “right-wing traditional Catholics”.
Ms McGuinness also accused the No side of making “very misleading and exaggerated accusations”, including the prospect of forced adoption or forced vaccination — which is “impossible” under Irish law.
