The State has today claimed that the High Court judge who ruled in favour of an autistic man's right to a primary education last year "trespassed in a non-judicious sphere".
Counsel for the State and former Attorney General, Mr Eoin Fitzsimons SC, told the Supreme Court today that Mr Justice Robert Barr's High Court ruling last October was an "excessive intervention into the field of legislation".
Mr Barr granted 23-year-old Mr James Sinnott free primary education appropriate to his needs and for as long as he would be capable of benefiting from it. The ruling provided for education according to the Applied Behavioural Analysis(ABA) model which is skills-based and involves a 1/1 pupil-teacher ratio.
Mr Fitzsimons said the High Court ruling had "budgetary, taxation and policy implications" and breached the separation of powers principle by effectively deciding on State policy.
Mr Sinnott won his case against the State last year on the grounds that it had breached his constitutional rights by denying him a primary education. Mr Sinnott and his mother Kathryn were also awarded £255,000 in the landmark judgement.
The state is now appealing the awarding of a sum of £55,000 to Ms Sinnott, but will not seek the return of £15,000 she received for her son's medical treatments.
Opening the State's appeal this morning, Mr Fitzsimons argued that Article 42.4 of the Constitution, which places an onus on the State to provide primary education, referred to children up to the age of 18 and not beyond.
Mr Fitzsimons insisted he had been instructed to make the case on the basis that the normal school-leaving age is 18 and therefore 23-year-old Mr Sinnott was not entitled, as a right, to primary education.
He said: "The State accepts that it should look after people like Mr Sinnott, but not as a Constitutional right."
The case continues tomorrow.