A Supreme Court judge has concluded that the constitutional obligation to provide free primary education applies to children and does not continue indefinitely into adulthood according to individual need.
The ruling arose from proceedings concerning Jamie Sinnott, who was born in October 1977 and diagnosed in infancy with a severe form of autism. His mother, Kathryn Sinnott, had pursued proceedings seeking education appropriate to his needs.
The High Court found that Jamie had a constitutional right to free primary education not only as a child but into adulthood for as long as he remained capable of benefiting from it. It also awarded damages and made a mandatory order requiring the State to continue providing appropriate education.
The State did not appeal the finding that it had failed in its constitutional obligations while Jamie was a child. It accepted that the right continued until age 18 and did not challenge the High Court's findings about the nature of education appropriate to his needs. It also did not contest the damages already awarded, including damages calculated beyond his 18th birthday.
The central appeal concerned what happened after adulthood.
Mr Justice Murray held that “primary education” in Article 42.4 must be understood in its ordinary and constitutional context as education for children. While the content of primary education can evolve with modern knowledge and teaching methods, he said that did not alter the age group to which the constitutional guarantee applied.
He also considered Article 42 as a whole to be child-centred, beginning with the family and parental responsibility for children's education.
The State therefore had a margin of judgment in fixing the upper age for the constitutional entitlement. Treating 18, the age of legal adulthood, as that boundary was not inconsistent with Article 42.4.
Murray J would allow the State appeal. Because of that conclusion, he found it unnecessary to decide further arguments about mandatory court orders and separation of powers.