State concerns over the implications of a High Court ruling on the rights of the unborn are expected to result in an appeal, possibly to the Supreme Court.

The fallout from a judgment last July has raised concerns that there are now apparently conflicting decisions from the High Court on the extent of the constitutional rights of the "unborn".

It is understood that the State has been advised that the most recent judgment, made last July, means an unborn child has rights beyond the right to life.

The application for a certificate of appeal will come before Mr Justice Richard Humphreys next month arising from his judgment last July finding "unborn" means an "unborn child" with rights extending beyond the right to life under Article 40.3.3 (the 1981 anti-abortion amendment of the Constitution).

The judge also noted Article 42a of the Constitution, inserted as a result of the 2012 Children's Referendum, provides "the State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights".

Because an "unborn" is "clearly a child", Article 42a means all children "both before and after birth", he said.

Dismissing the State's argument that Article 42a cannot apply to unborn children because they cannot exercise several rights, he said a born child suffering from profound disability may not be able to meaningfully enjoy a large number of constitutional rights such as freedom of expression but that did not alter their status as a child entitled to rights.

The State's submissions as to how to interpret Articles 40.3.3 and 42a were intended to be "good for this officially disfavoured category of human person and not otherwise" and "a pragmatic fix to tidy away the problem of the unborn", he said.

Judgement discussed by a number of Government departments

It is understood his judgment has since been discussed by a number of Government departments.

The judgment considered the rights of a Nigerian man facing deportation along with the rights of the man's Irish partner and their child, unborn when their legal action aimed at preventing deportation was initiated.

The plaintiffs were represented by Michael Conlon SC, instructed by Brian Burns, of Burns, Kelly, Corrigan Solicitors.

Mr Burns confirmed this week his side had been notified the State intended to seek a certificate of appeal.

When the matter was mentioned this week to Mr Justice Humphreys, he adjourned to 12 December the State's application.

Legal sources believe, due to the importance of the issues raised, a certificate for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is likely to be granted.

The State may also seek a "leapfrog" appeal, one bypassing the Court of Appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Humphreys said the unborn child, including of a parent facing deportation, enjoys "significant" rights and legal position at common law, by statute, and under the Constitution, "going well beyond the right to life alone".

Many of those rights are "actually effective" rather than merely prospective.

While neither Article 42a nor Article 40.3.3 were intended to confer immigration rights, that did not displace any legal consequences flowing from the prospective position of an unborn child with a parent facing deportation, he said.

Granting leave to the plaintiffs for judicial review over the man's intended deportation, the judge said, in considering whether or not to revoke the 2008 deportation order, the Minister for Justice must consider the right to life of the unborn plus the legal rights the child will acquire on birth, insofar as those were relevant to deportation.

The minister must consider the constitutional, statutory, EU and ECHR rights of the man, his partner and the child, including their family rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, he ruled.

His findings did not mean a person in the position of this man, unlawfully in the State since 2007, was automatically entitled to remain here, he stressed.

In July 2015, the man and his then pregnant Irish partner had sought leave for judicial review and got an interim injunction restraining his deportation. Their child was born a month later.

In his decision, Mr Justice Humphreys dismissed as "entirely without merit" the minister's argument the only relevant right of the man's unborn child was a right to life.

He disagreed he was bound by a decision by another High Court judge, Mr Justice John Cooke, that Article 40.3.3 is an exhaustive statement of the entirety of the rights of the unborn.

Instead, he endorsed a 2008 judgment of Ms Justice Mary Irvine stating the unborn child had significant rights under the Constitution before Article 40.3.3.

The right to life existed under Article 40.3 before Article 40.3.3 was inserted and other significant rights of the unborn are recognised or created by common law or statute, in turn reflecting inherent natural and constitutional rights of the unborn implied by the constitutional order, he said.

The recognition of rights of the unborn is not "some peculiarity" of Irish or common law and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises a child needs appropriate legal protection before and after birth, he added.