The High Court refused to grant a declaration that the State had breached a child’s constitutional and statutory education rights while he waited for his allocated special school to open. The court allowed the child liberty to apply again if the delay went significantly beyond the first quarter of 2024 and seriously risked his education and development.
In a judgment delivered on 16 January 2024, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger said C.C., a minor represented by his father, had a place at a new special school that had not opened as planned for the 2023–24 school year. Construction and staff recruitment were ongoing. The school was then expected to open by the end of March 2024.
C.C.’s parents sought a declaration that the State respondents had failed to provide an adequate and appropriate education. They relied on a psychologist’s recommendation that he attend a special school. The State argued that his allocated place and the home tuition scheme available in the interim met its obligations, and that the delay reflected practical and resource constraints. The court found the case was neither moot nor futile because C.C. was not receiving school-based education while he waited.
The judgment noted that C.C. had home tuition and could apply for a Department of Education grant covering up to 20 hours a week, subject to tutor qualification, Teaching Council registration, vetting and Department approval. His parents had not applied for the grant. They said two of his three current tutors would not qualify and they were reluctant to change tutors who had built a relationship with him. The judge treated the grant’s availability as relevant, while recognising that home tuition was not a suitable replacement for special-school education.
The judge said the period between the family’s move to Ireland in August 2022 and the allocation of a school place in July 2023 was not an actionable breach, given when applications could be made and when the required Irish-based psychologist’s report was obtained. She distinguished earlier cases involving children without a school place: C.C. had an allocated place and interim tuition while the project was completed. The evidence about efforts to open the school and the causes of delay had not been challenged.
The court concluded that, in the circumstances, C.C.’s rights had been vindicated and the State was discharging its obligations. It stressed that this did not permit unlimited delay. The matter was listed before the judge for final orders on 5 March 2024; the judgment did not make those final orders.