A Supreme Court judge has concluded that the State's constitutional duty to provide free primary education does not create a lifelong entitlement to educational support for Jamie Sinnott, an autistic man whose case concerned the extent of State obligations under Article 42 of the Constitution.
Jamie Sinnott was born in 1977 and developed symptoms of autism within months. The court was told that he could benefit from structured education and therapy but required continuous support to retain progress. Proceedings were brought on his behalf by his mother, Kathryn Sinnott, alleging failures by the State to provide constitutional educational rights.
The High Court had treated the assistance Jamie required as falling within the concept of primary education. The State did not appeal that particular finding directly. Its principal argument before the Supreme Court concerned how long any such constitutional obligation continued. The State argued that it ended at 18, while Jamie Sinnott's case was that it continued for as long as he could benefit from education, potentially throughout his life.
Mr Justice Francis D Murphy considered that the duration question could not be separated from the meaning of primary education itself. He disagreed with the broader interpretation adopted in the earlier O'Donoghue case and by the High Court in Sinnott's case.
He said primary education, as understood when the Constitution was adopted, referred to basic scholastic education for children and was distinct from therapeutic, medical and social supports. While the State had constitutional power to provide additional educational facilities, he did not accept that the particular range of supports required by Jamie Sinnott fell within the mandatory primary-education obligation.
Mr Justice Murphy concluded that the constitutional obligation to provide primary education ceased by age 12 and, in any event, did not extend beyond 18. He would therefore allow the State's appeal on that issue.
He also concluded that Kathryn Sinnott could not personally recover general damages for any failure to provide her son's primary education and would allow the appeal against that award.