Mr Justice Keane
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said the State resisted Mr Jamie Sinnott's claim to lifelong education solely on the grounds he was not entitled to those services as a matter of constitutional right beyond the age of 18. The Minister for Education had assured the court he did not intend to withdraw the services to Mr Sinnott and his concerns related to the far-reaching implications if adults were entitled to free primary education.
The State had not appealed the High Court decision that Mr Sinnott was entitled to damages for the period up to the hearing of his action, when he was aged 22, on the basis of its finding that Mr Sinnott was entitled as a matter of constitutional right to free primary education suitable to his special needs. However, the State was still asking the Supreme Court to treat that decision (which the State by not appealing had accepted as right in law) as wrong in law.
"To accept that contention as correct involves a feat of mental legerdemain of which I am incapable," Mr Justice Keane said. Even if the State had appealed the damages award as related to when Mr Sinnott was aged between 18 and 22, he would have concluded the High Court was correct on this point of law. The Chief Justice said primary education, in the vast majority of cases, denotes the stage of a child's education lasting from ages six to 12. Mr Sinnott's needs still did not extend significantly beyond the basic skills most children acquire in the home between birth and age four. The evidence established the need for such a form of education continuing into what would be regarded as adulthood.
The Chief Justice said it was not the function of the Minister for Education to determine the age at which the constitutional right of a person like Mr Sinnott ceases. This was the function of the courts alone. Mr Sinnott was one of a small category of people who, because of their mental handicap, could never enjoy life in all its diversity and richness but to whom at least a measure of happiness might be available.
The uncontested evidence in the case was that, to attain even that low plateau, Mr Sinnott required continuing access to education.
He was satisfied Mr Sinnott was entitled to a declaration that the State was obliged to provide for free primary education for him, appropriate to his needs, for as long as he was capable of benefiting from it.