In a test case taken on behalf of an autistic man, Mr Jamie Sinnott, the Supreme Court yesterday found the State's constitutional obligation to provide for free primary education applies to children only, not adults, and ceases at the age of 18.
However, some of the judges indicated the Education Act 1998 may provide another legal avenue for Mr Sinnott (23) and other persons to pursue educational grievances.
It is the first time the Supreme Court has defined when the obligation to provide for free primary education ends, and the decision has major social and financial implications. An unprecedented seven-judge Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal against a landmark High Court decision of October 2000 in actions taken by Mr Sinnott and his mother, Ms Kathryn Sinnott, Ballinhassig, Co Cork, which found the State's obligation to provide for free primary education is based on need, not age.
The court overturned the High Court's order that the State provide free primary education for Mr Sinnott, appropriate to his needs, for as long as he may benefit from it and also provide the necessary funding for a specific home-based programme for persons with autism for 2-1/2 years at a cost of £28,000 a year. It also ruled the High Court had no jurisdiction to review Mr Sinnott's situation in April 2003 and perhaps consider a claim for further damages.
It substituted for the revoked orders a formal declaration that the State, in failing to provide for free primary education for Mr Sinnott up to the age of 18 and appropriate to his needs, had deprived him of his constitutional rights. It also upheld by a six-to-one majority the State's appeal against the High Court fin ding that Ms Sinnott's constitutional rights had been breached as a result of its failure to vindicate her son's constitutional right to free primary education.
Ms Justice Denham dissented and found Ms Sinnott's constitutional rights as a parent and mother had been breached.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, was the sole member of the court to find Mr Sinnott was entitled to a declaration that the State was obliged by Article 42.4 of the Constitution (which stipulates the State "shall provide for free primary education") to provide for free primary education for Mr Sinnott appropriate to his needs for as long as he was capable of benefiting from it.
Mr Justice Keane found "no principled basis", either in law or evidence, for the State's argument that a person in the position of Mr Sinnott ceased to be in need of primary education at age 18, age 22 or any age in the future which could be identified with any precision.
However, five of the judges - Ms Justice Denham, Mr Justice Murray, Mr Justice Hardiman, Mr Justice Geoghegan and Mr Justice Fennelly - found the State's obligation to Mr Sinnott ceased at age 18. Mr Justice Murphy concluded the obligation ceased at age 12.
The majority court found Article 42 of the Constitution, which sets out the obligations of parents and the State in relation to education, could only be properly construed as relating to children and the State was entitled to fix 18 as when its obligation ceased. They said 18 was generally recognised as when a person ceased to be a child.
Mr Justice Hardiman said the court's decision did not mean there was no other legal avenue open to Mr Sinnott as to what was to be done for him in the future.
He said it was unfortunate the Sinnotts' claim had rested entirely on Article 42 and he indicated that provisions of the Education Act 1998, the Equal Status Act 2000 and the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 imposed duties on public authorities which might be relevant to persons such as Mr Sinnott. The High Court had awarded damages of £280,000 to the Sinnotts after it found their constitutional rights had been breached. Mr Sinnott will retain his damages of £225,500.
Those damages were awarded by the High Court for breach of his constitutional rights up to the time of the High Court action, when Mr Sinnott was 22, and were not appealed by the State in the Supreme Court as it accepted it had breached those rights.
However, Ms Sinnott lost £40,000 of the £55,000 damages which had been awarded to her in the High Court. She was allowed £15,000 of that award, which was for special damages and has already been paid out. The State had said during the Supreme Court hearing that irrespective of the outcome of the appeal it would not be seeking repayment of the £15,000.
Last night the Minister for Education said ex-gratia payments would be made by the Government to compensate for awards taken away by the Supreme Court ruling.
The State indicated during the appeal it would continue to provide educational services to Mr Sinnott. It had also undertaken to pay the entire costs of the legal proceedings.
Mr Justice Barr found a citizen's constitutional right must be responded to by the State in full. A partial response had no justification in law even in difficult financial circumstances which might involve raising new tax revenue to meet claims.
In his judgment, the Chief Justice referred to the "depressing saga" over 20 years in which Ms Sinnott's efforts to persuade the health and education authorities to recognise autism and provide appropriate education and training for those with it were met with what the High Court had described as "official indifference and persistent procrastination" which continued up to and throughout the High Court hearing.
Ignorance of the problem of autism in official circles was in stark contrast to the well-known and documented international progress in the area since the 1960s and earlier, he added. The problem in Mr Sinnott's case was compounded by misleading professional advice which set back his education and training for years.
Ms Sinnott's unremitting battle to secure proper treatment and educational facilities for her son eventually became a campaign on behalf of autistic children generally, he said. Her commitment to that cause could not be praised too highly.
Mr Justice Keane observed the posture adopted by the State was not easy to follow. Because it had not appealed against that part of the High Court order awarding damages to Mr Sinnott for the breach of his right to education up to the time of the High Court hearing, when he was 22, the State could not now contend the High Court was wrong in not cutting off the State's obligation at 18.
However, the majority Supreme Court took the view the court could still adjudicate on the point raised and found in favour of the State's claim that its obligation under Article 42.4 ceased at age 18. This was based on what Mr Justice Hardiman referred to as a global construction of Article 42 which deals with the duties of parents and the State in relation to the education of children.
