The State is to appeal to the Supreme Court against a landmark High Court decision that the State's constitutional obligation to provide free primary education for the severely mentally disabled is based on need, not age, and does not stop at 18.
The High Court judgment by Mr Justice Barr earlier this month was delivered in an action by an autistic man, Jamie Sinnott (23), and his mother Kathryn, of Ballinhassig, Co Cork, arising from the State's failure to provide for Jamie's basic education. Yesterday, Mr Justice Barr awarded costs of the 29-day action by the Sinnotts, estimated at more than £1 million, against the State.
He granted a stay on the costs order and on an award of £222,500 damages to the Sinnotts pending the outcome of the State's appeal to the Supreme Court. The State is to apply within 28 days to the Supreme Court for an early date for that appeal.
The matter was before Mr Justice Barr yesterday for the purposes of making formal orders in the case, deciding the costs issue and for the State to indicate whether it intended to appeal the judgment, delivered on October 4th last.
Mr Justice Barr had indicated he did not want any "foot-dragging" by the State if there was to be an appeal. He said yesterday the State's delay in bringing an appeal in an earlier case taken on behalf of Paul O'Donoghue, which established that the severely mentally handicapped are entitled to have free primary education provided for them, had been "appalling".
His concern was that there should not be a repeat of what had happened in the O'Donoghue case where years had passed before the "final capitulation" by the State at the door of the Supreme Court.
When Mr James O'Reilly SC, for the State, dissented from the judge's analysis of the State's attitude to the O'Donoghue case, Mr Justice Barr said the State had not in the appeal of the O'Donoghue decision challenged the High Court finding that the severely mentally handicapped were entitled to free primary education.
The State had appeared to use the Supreme Court appeal to postpone implementation of that judgment, Mr Justice Barr said. The situation appeared to be different in this case because the State had now provided funding for Jamie Sinnott's education and had also paid special damages, he added.
Mr O'Reilly said his instructions were there would be an appeal but on a point of law only, not on the facts of the case. He agreed with the judge his side wanted clarification from the Supreme Court whether there is a continuing right to education beyond the age of 18 "and other cognate issues".
