A seven-judge Supreme Court will today begin hearing an appeal by the State against a landmark High Court decision in favour of an autistic man and his mother which found the State's obligation to provide basic education for the severely disabled extends beyond 18.
It is the first time seven Supreme Court judges have been assembled to determine a constitutional issue.
The State is appealing the High Court award of £55,000 damages to Mrs Kathryn Sinnott for breach of her constitutional rights due to the State's failure to provide free basic education for her 23-year-old autistic son, Jamie.
However, if it is successful, the State has said it will not seek repayment of £15,000 already paid to Mrs Sinnott.
In his High Court judgment last October, Mr Justice Barr found the State had breached the constitutional rights of the Sinnotts in failing to provide free primary education for Mr Sinnott and ruled the constitutional right of severely disabled persons to such education continued for as long as they might benefit from it. He also awarded damages to the Sinnotts.
The State has said its appeal against Mr Justice Barr's decision rests with the finding that the obligation to provide for free basic education extends beyond the age of 18.
When the case was mentioned before the Supreme Court earlier this month, lawyers for the State said that, in Jamie Sinnott's case, the State accepted that his constitutional right to have the State provide free primary education for him was infringed. The State was also accepting there was a liability in general damages for him.
However, the State was disputing the High Court's finding that Mr Sinnott's right to free basic education extended beyond the age of 18. The State would be asking the Supreme Court to find his rights existed until the age of 18 and were infringed until then.
Mr Eoghan Fitzsimons SC, for the State, said the High Court had directed a certain form of education be provided for Mr Sinnott until 2003 when the court would review the matter.
While the State would pay on an ex gratia and without prejudice basis the damages awarded to Mr Sinnott, it was not accepting his entitlements continued beyond age 18. Counsel said the Sinnotts were likely to argue that, because the State was paying damages up to 2003, it was accepting there was an entitlement until then and this might create difficulties for his side. The State was paying the damages without admitting a legal liability.
In relation to Mrs Sinnott's case, the State was contesting the High Court's finding that her constitutional rights were infringed and the appeal was proceeding, he said.
