The Court of Appeal has ruled that a child’s assessment under the Disability Act 2005 was inadequate because it did not identify the child’s disability, needs or suitable services, and because diagnostic assessment was necessary in the circumstances.
The decision arose from a case stated by the Circuit Court. The question was whether an assessment of need could be complete once an assessment officer had determined that an applicant had a disability, if the assessment included no diagnostic assessment of the child’s disability.
In a judgment delivered on 10 November 2023, Mr Justice Maurice Collins agreed with Ms Justice Whelan’s judgment and the answer she proposed. He said the Act required an assessment to identify the nature and extent of a person’s disability, the resulting health and education needs, and services appropriate to meet those needs.
The report concerning the child, referred to as C, did not identify the disability or its nature and extent. Collins J said it described how C presented to a preliminary assessment team, did not identify educational needs, and set out health needs and proposed services in generic terms. The assessment officer did not appear to have met C or C’s parents.
The report listed “further diagnostic assessment” as a health need. Collins J reasoned that if diagnostic assessment was considered necessary to identify C’s needs and the services required, it was an essential part of a proper assessment under section 8 of the Act. He concluded that the assessment carried out did not comply with that section.
The approach had followed the HSE’s Assessment of Need Standard Operating Procedure that came into effect in 2020. Collins J agreed with Whelan J that the procedure improperly narrowed the statutory assessment and undermined assessment officers’ independence. He said the Act required services to be identified without regard to cost or service capacity at the assessment stage, even though practical and resource limits could later affect the services set out in a service statement.
The court’s conclusion was tied to the circumstances before it. Collins J acknowledged that some disabilities and related needs may be identified without a diagnosis. He also noted that the Act does not expressly refer to “diagnostic assessment”; it is required where needed to identify the disability’s nature and extent or the resulting needs and services.
The judgment agreed with Whelan J’s proposed answer to the Circuit Court’s question and with her proposed costs order. The source excerpt does not set out the wording of that answer or the terms of the costs order.