Parents of special-needs children face an anxious period before the Supreme Court finally decides what the State's obligations towards them are.
While he is likely to attract strong criticism for his decision to appeal the Jamie Sinnott judgment, the Minister for Education, Dr Woods, claims further points of law need to be clarified. Ms Kathryn Sinnott, mother of the 23-year-old autistic man, said the decision was inexcusable and was part of a campaign of "foot-dragging" by the State.
Legal sources familiar with the case said yesterday the Jamie Sinnott judgment now had to be implemented by the Government and it could not refuse to take action on the basis of the pending appeal.
Nevertheless, other parents of special-needs children are likely to be angry and worried that the generous judgment reached last month by Mr Justice Barr could be rolled back by the Supreme Court.
The judgment said Mr Sinnott should be provided with free primary education "as long as he might benefit from it". Legal sources said this finding was likely to apply to other special-needs parents seeking to have their children's constitutional rights to an education vindicated.
The Department of Education is currently dealing with 58 legal actions from parents of special-needs children. This is understood to be the tip of a huge iceberg, and many other parents who believe they have been treated badly by the State are waiting in the wings.
On the basis of the £255,000 awarded to Mr Sinnott and his mother, the State could be facing a large bill if the other cases go against it.
The Department accepts that regardless of the Supreme Court's deliberations, Jamie Sinnott's further education is guaranteed. Dr Woods said yesterday all undertakings made to him would be honoured. But the position in relation to other special-needs children is not so clear cut.
The judgment from Mr Justice Barr said the State must provide special-needs pupils with education even if they are now over 18. This may be rolled back by the Supreme Court, which could mean that people now over 18 whose education was badly neglected earlier in life would not be given further education.
The Department of Education in a press statement yesterday depicted the judgment as too wide-ranging. It said it was "very broad and unqualified". Its legal advice was that individuals with no special needs might be able to use the judgment to re-enter education on the basis that their primary education was "inadequate". Anybody in the "whole population" could qualify under this heading, it said.
Dr Woods said he wanted this clarified and claimed the Government had been "generous and wholehearted in its response to the Jamie Sinnott judgment". He stressed that "points of fact" were not disputed between his Department and the Sinnotts. But he argued that clarification was needed to allow the Department to assess what budgets to put aside for special education and related services in future.
The Supreme Court has to decide whether thousands of people with no special needs are included under Mr Justice Barr's judgment. The parents of special-needs children will be hoping the Supreme Court, in looking at that issue, will not also constrain the rights of their children.
The Department's statement said the Supreme Court's views will "have major implications for the education of children and adults with disabilities and also for the State in how it should plan and resource facilities to cater for their needs in particular and for those citizens in general".
While parts of Jamie Sinnott's personal circumstances will be raised in the appeal, most of the Supreme Court hearing will be concerned with points of law.