There is a palpable sense of dismay and anger about the Supreme Court decision in the Jamie Sinnott case yesterday. The court found the State's constitutional obligation to provide primary free education extended to children only. In so doing, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling that Jamie Sinnott - who is now 23 and suffers from autism - had an entitlement to such education for as long as it was beneficial, irrespective of age.
The Supreme Court ruled that primary education relates to the teaching of children only. Adults do not enjoy a constitutional right to free primary education. Fine Gael has described the outcome as "a shallow and painful victory." The Labour Party claims the Sinnott family was abandoned by the State. Many ordinary members of the public will agree with these sentiments. Mrs Kathryn Sinnott, Jamie's mother, has fought a heroic 20-year battle against official complacency and neglect to ensure that her son gets the education he needs. Yesterday, it appeared that the highest court in the land was insensitive and unsympathetic.
But, in truth, the court had little option. The State, in its appeal against the High Court ruling, had asked the Supreme Court to clarify the parameters of Article 42.2 of the Constitution which places an onus on the State to provide free primary education. The court found that primary education relates to the teaching of children only.
Despite the low-key response from the Minister for Education, Dr Woods, the Government will assuredly be relieved by the ruling. The High Court judgment opened up the possibility that free primary education would have to be provided for all - irrespective of age.
There must also be wider questions about the wisdom of launching an appeal against the High Court ruling in the first place. The State's fundamental task is to provide for its citizens and to respond to their needs. Citizens in any democracy should be entitled to a good education in relation to their own needs. Is it really the task of the State to set a limit to these rights?
Minor progress has been made in providing more special classes and more school assistants for autistic children but the level of provision is still grossly inadequate. Concern for the public purse, rather than the needs of autistic children, appears to dominate official thinking. It is to be hoped that the forthcoming Task Force on Autism will powerfully remind the State of its responsibilities to the weak and the vulnerable. In the course of the appeal, the Government made many promises about how it intended to upgrade educational provision for autistic children. As Mrs Kathryn Sinnott said yesterday, it is time for it to deliver on these pledges.