The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on an appeal by the State against a landmark High Court judgment in the cases of an autistic man, Mr Jamie Sinnott, and his mother, Kathryn. The appeal is primarily against the finding that the constitutional entitlement to free primary education is based on need, not age, and does not cease at age 18.
Submissions on behalf of the Sinnotts, of Ballinhassig, Co Cork, and a reply by the State were heard yesterday. At their conclusion the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, presiding, said judgment was being reserved.
In the High Court last October, Mr Justice Barr found the constitutional rights of Mr Sinnott (23) and his mother were breached as a result of the State's failure to provide appropriate free primary education for Mr Sinnott. He found that Mr Sinnott had received no more than two to three years of meaningful education and awarded total damages of more than £270,000 to the Sinnotts.
In the Supreme Court the State accepted that Mr Sinnott's constitutional rights had been breached, but it disputes any breach of Mrs Sinnott's rights.
It contends that the right to free primary education is for children only and ceases at 18.
It has said it will pay the £225,500 damages awarded to Mr Sinnott on a without prejudice basis, but is appealing the £55,000 damages awarded to Mrs Sinnott. However, it will not seek repayment of £15,000 of that amount.
In submissions yesterday Mr Paul Sreenan SC, for the Sinnotts, argued that if the courts were to vindicate the constitutional rights of persons, they had to get involved at a deeper level than making declarations and could not have regard to resources.
The Constitution gave persons a right to appropriate primary education, appropriate in relation to the needs of the person and not to resources.
The right to primary education went further than other constitutional rights which the State was obliged to meet "as far as practicable", he added. There was no such limitation on the right to free primary education.
Replying, Mr Eoghan Fitzsimons SC, for the State, said there were major implications if the court found there was no age limitation on the right to free primary education, as set out in Article 42.4, and that the right was based on need, not age. The Constitution was not a repository for need and could not be "some kind of glorified agency meeting needs".
The Constitution was inclusive, everyone had rights under it, including Mr Sinnott, but it did not and could not provide for meeting the needs of all, he said.
