Clarification of `offers' by State to Sinnotts sought

Lawyers for an autistic man and his mother, who last year won a landmark High Court judgment compelling the State to provide free basic education for him, are seeking clarification of "offers" made by the State in advance of its Supreme Court appeal against the High Court decision.

The appeal by the State against Mr Justice Barr's decision in the cases of Mr Jamie Sinnott (23) and his mother, Ms Kathryn Sinnott, Ballinhassig, Co Cork, is listed to open on March 27th.

In his High Court decision last October, Mr Justice Barr decided the State's obligation to provide for free primary education for the severely mentally disabled was based on need, not age, and did not cease at the age of 18. He awarded Mr Sinnott and his mother £250,000 damages arising from the State's failure to provide free and appropriate education for him.

The State indicated later that month that it would be appealing on a point of law - whether there was a continuing right to education beyond the age of 18 - and what were described as "other cognate issues".

Earlier this week the Minister for Education and Science, Dr Woods, told the Dail the award of damages to the Sinnotts and the provision of education to Mr Sinnott would remain in place regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal. He said the Sinnotts' costs would also be paid by the State, but repeated that the State had to appeal to clarify points of law.

At the Supreme Court yesterday the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said the court had listed the case for mention because, as the appeal was listed for a week-long hearing, the court was anxious to ensure it was ready to proceed.

Mr Michael Gleeson SC, for the Sinnotts, said the State had delivered its submissions in the appeal last Wednesday and he expected to have his submissions by next Wednesday. He said the most recent correspondence from the State clarified certain offers made which might affect the running of the appeal.

Mr Justice Geoghegan said that, according to reports this week, the appeal may be "a moot" (means in law hypothetical or unnecessary). Mr Gleeson said the Sinnotts would be arguing that the appeal was a moot.

Mr Justice Keane said if there was to be any alteration in the hearing of the case, the Supreme Court must be told immediately. This appeal had been given priority. Mr Gleeson said the Sinnotts were attempting to clarify what had been offered and, in fairness to the State, they might be in the process of replying to a letter.