A mother of nine children and her autistic son have won a landmark High Court judgment compelling the State to provide free primary education for him for as long as he might benefit from it. The decision that the State's responsibility to provide free primary education for the severely handicapped does not stop at the age of 18 has massive implications for hundreds of disabled people and could lead to multimillion pound costs for the State.
Mr Justice Barr urged the State to review the problems in its administrative and decision-making structures which led to the failure to meet its constitutional obligations and gave rise to such cases. He described the difficulties encountered by Mr Jamie Sinnott and his mother Kathryn in securing appropriate education for him as "symptomatic of a widespread malaise".
In a 70-page judgment on the Sinnotts' 29-day action, he found the State had failed to honour its constitutional obligation to provide for free primary education for Mr Sinnott (23), of Ballinhassig, Co Cork, and was still failing to do so. He directed that appropriate education and other services must be provided now and awarded total damages of £255,000 - £200,000 to Mr Sinnott and £55,000 to his mother - for breach of their constitutional rights. He said further damages might be awarded to Mr Sinnott on review of his case in 2003.
He warned he was setting "a marker" that "punitive damages" would be awarded if the State persisted in breaching its constitutional obligations to the severely handicapped "with the urgency which is their right".
The judge found Mr Sinnott, despite being diagnosed with autism in his first year and having had various programmes of education and services recommended for him by experts in the US and Ireland, had received from the State no more than two years of meaningful education in his 23 years.
When his mother brought him to a professor of paediatrics in 1978, she was told to go home and "watch it (autism) develop". She rejected that advice and persisted unsuccessfully in trying to get appropriate services. However, Mr Sinnott is now severely mentally handicapped, non-verbal and not toilet trained.
"The sad history of Jamie Sinnott is an indictment of the State and cogently illustrates that it has failed to participate actively and meaningfully in the provision of appropriate services for him and those like him over the years," Mr Justice Barr said.
He rejected the State's argument that its obligation to provide for free primary education ceased at the age of 18. He found the ultimate criterion for interpreting the State's constitutional obligation was need, not age.
The judge also rejected the State's "forlorn" argument that Mr Sinnott's primary problem was global mental handicap, overlaid with autistic tendencies, and said there was no evidence to support "that extraordinary proposition".
He said the Department of Finance had "persistently dragged its feet" in recognising and implementing the obligations of the State towards the severely disabled, as set out in the 1993 O'Donoghue judgment which stated that the severely disabled were constitutionally entitled to free primary education and made directions as to its provision, including a 6/1 pupil teacher ratio.
A citizen's constitutional right must be responded to by the State in full, Mr Justice Barr said. Already more than 100 cases are before the High Court aimed at compelling the State to provide appropriate education for other autistic and special needs children.
The judge cited a litany of State failures towards Mr Sinnott. It had failed to provide primary education; continuity of education; necessary ancillary services including speech, occupational and language therapy and healthcare, and sufficient psychological and medical assessment.
It also failed to devise and operate an appropriate curriculum for him; to devise, revise and keep operational a viable programme for his education and training and to do so in consultation with his mother; to keep adequate records of his education, training and treatment; to keep his mother informed of her son's progress and any intended plans for his education and training and to recognise and respond adequately to his needs.
The judge drew attention to primary weaknesses in the administrative structure which had given rise to the Sinnotts' case, including insufficient liaison between Government departments. He urged an integrated departmental approach to the fulfilment of the State's constitutional obligations to disabled sections of society.
The judge praised the "intelligent, selfless dedication and heroism" of Mrs Sinnott, who has eight other children aged from six to 27, "in contending over the years with so much official indifference and persistent procrastination which has continued up to and throughout this trial".
The case was adjourned for mention to tomorrow to allow time for consideration of the judgment and whether to appeal to the Supreme Court. The issue of costs was deferred.
