Chief Justice Keane concluded that Jamie Sinnott’s constitutional right to free primary education appropriate to his special needs should continue beyond the age of 18 for as long as he remained capable of benefiting from it.
Jamie Sinnott, born in 1977, developed autism in infancy. The High Court found that over his first 23 years he had received less than three years of meaningful education and training. It also found that earlier, appropriate intervention could probably have substantially improved his physical abilities, independence and quality of life.
The State accepted on appeal that Jamie’s constitutional right to appropriate free primary education had been breached before he turned 18. It also did not challenge the £222,500 damages awarded to him. The remaining dispute concerned whether his constitutional entitlement continued into adulthood and what orders the courts could properly make.
Chief Justice Keane rejected a fixed age-18 cut-off. He said the evidence established that Jamie continued to require education involving basic skills and human development which, for him, properly amounted to primary education. There was no principled basis for saying that this constitutional need disappeared at 18, 22 or any other presently identifiable age.
However, the Chief Justice disagreed with the High Court’s form of remedy. He considered a declaration of Jamie’s continuing entitlement appropriate, rather than a mandatory injunction directing future expenditure. He also rejected the High Court’s retention of jurisdiction to review the case in 2003 and potentially award further damages, holding that future breaches could instead be brought back before the courts if they occurred.
In Kathryn Sinnott’s separate case, he found no independent constitutional basis for the £55,000 general damages awarded to her because of the State’s breach of her son’s rights. He would dismiss that element of her claim while leaving untouched £15,000 in special damages.
This judgment records Chief Justice Keane’s conclusions; the text supplied does not state the final disposition adopted by the full seven-member Supreme Court.