A High Court challenge against the State's use of public money on an information campaign about the forthcoming Children's Referendum will be heard next Tuesday.
The action by Mark McCrystal claims the Government information campaign is designed to promote a Yes vote and therefore cannot be paid for by public funds.
Mr McCrystal, of Kilbarrack Road in Dublin, brought proceedings against the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General.
He claims the State is in breach of a 1995 judgment by the Supreme Court, known as the McKenna decision, that held that referenda should be explained to the public in an impartial manner.
He said he has no objection to the State arguing for a Yes vote, but only by means that do not involve the expenditure of public money, which he believes would run to more than €1m in this case.
His counsel told the High Court this morning that there was an urgency to the matter as leaflets were about to be distributed and the earliest possible hearing date was needed.
Counsel for the State said they had a complaint about the "choice of timing" in the case and said the State would not be ready to defend the case this week.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy set a hearing date for next Tuesday.
In his action, Mr McCrystal is seeking a number of injunctions including one restraining the State from spending public money on websites and booklets for the purpose of promoting a particular result in the forthcoming referendum on the Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012.
He also wants the court to stop the State from representing information to the public, which he claims is designed to promote a particular result in the 10 November referendum and stop distributing the proposed Government booklet about the referendum until his action has been determined.
He is also seeking orders requiring the State to disclose to him the text of a proposed Government booklet, due to be posted to citizens about the referendum in the coming days.
He wants all material relating to the development and drafting of the website "childrensreferendum.ie" and the booklet, as well as records showing the total cost of the booklet and website.
When the case first came before the court last Friday, counsel for Mr McCrystal said his client was bringing the action arising out of the use of what he believed was one-sided material on what was a Government website. Counsel added that €1.1m was to be spent on the Government's information campaign.
In an affidavit, Mr McCrystal said he has brought the action as a concerned citizen, with an interest in social and political affairs.
He said that the acts of the State which he complains of threaten his democratic and constitutional rights.
He said that he is particularly concerned about the impact of the referendum on parental rights and the fact the State is attempting to disguise and dismiss the ramifications of the amendment on parental rights.
While the Referendum Commissions, which are chaired by judges, have been regarded as being generally successful in providing impartial material, he said he has become concerned at what he says are parallel information campaigns being run by the Government in relation to referenda.
