The Minister for Justice, Charlie Flanagan, is seeking an early hearing of a Supreme Court appeal against a finding that “unborn” in the Constitution refers to a “child” with significant personal rights above and beyond the right to life.

The date for the appeal is expected to be set this coming Friday. As the Court has already described the case as raising issues of “systemic” importance, it is likely to get an early hearing date.

Lawyers for the Minister disagree with a 2016 High Court finding of Judge Richard Humphreys that the “unborn” is an “unborn child” with numerous effective rights. They insist the unborn child only enjoys a right to life, as a result of the Eighth Amendment, and no other rights.

The grounds of appeal include the Minister’s insistence the High Court was wrong to find the unborn is a “child” for the purposes of Article 42A, inserted as a result of the 2012 referendum, and to find that Article 42A affords protection for the rights of “all” children “both before and after birth”.

If the High Court findings are upheld, they will have “serious repercussions” for the duties of the State, particularly entities such as the Child and Family Agency, the Minister has argued in court documents. It would also affect the remit of the Minister for Children Katherine Zappone who currently denies she must advocate for unborn children.

It is not known whether the appeal will be decided before the expected referendum this year on the Eighth Amendment. If, however, both the Minister’s appeal were successful and the pro-life amendment were repealed, then unborn children would be left with no explicit Constitutional rights.