The State was told by a High Court judge yesterday that it must decide by October 31st whether it intends to appeal his landmark judgment which is aimed at ensuring that free primary education will be provided for all autistic and severely handicapped persons who seek it.
If the State does decide to appeal the judgment of Mr Justice Barr in the constitutional action taken by Mr Jamie Sinnott (23), an autistic man from Ballinhassig, Co Cork, and his mother, Kathryn, it must apply to the Supreme Court by the end of November for an early date for the hearing of any such appeal.
Mr Justice Barr said he would be seeking an undertaking from the Attorney General and the Chief State Solicitor that, if an appeal is to be taken, it will be prosecuted with the utmost urgency. He did not want "any dragging of feet as in the O'Donoghue case".
It was 1997 before the State's appeal against the 1993 O'Donoghue judgment, in which the High Court found that the severely handicapped were not only educable but could benefit greatly from education, came before the Supreme Court.
In his decision on the Sinnott case, Mr Justice Barr said of the O'Donoghue case that certain grounds of appeal were maintained despite a "tide of national and international expert opinion, with out any hope of success on the appeal but with the intention of delaying the implementation of the O'Donoghue judgment".
The Sinnott case was mentioned before the judge again yesterday. Mr Paul Sreenan SC, for the Sinnotts, said Mrs Sinnott was anxious that any appeal be prosecuted quickly and that her son's education should be funded within a very short period.
Mr James O'Reilly SC, for the State, said the judgment was just available, and advice would have to be given on it. There might be a logistical difficulty, if an appeal was to be taken, in making an application to the Supreme Court in that regard within four weeks from yesterday.
He proposed that any such application be made within three weeks after the formal order in the case was made and suggested counsel from both sides could try to reach agreement on that order within a short time. Counsel stressed he did not want to seem obstructive. He believed there would be no difficulty in making a payment, in the interim, of £42,000 to fund an educational programme for Mr Sinnott, and for a further payment of £15,000 to Mrs Sinnott in relation to her expenditure to date.