IESC 63 · Supreme Court

THE SUPREME COURT

Keane C.J.

Denham J.

Murphy J.

Murray J.

Hardiman J.

Geoghegan J.

Fennelly J.

Record No. 326 & 327/00

BETWEEN

JAMIE SINNOTT A PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND NOT SO FOUND SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND KATHRYN SINNOTT

Plaintiff/Respondent

AND

THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants/Appellants

and

BETWEEN

KATHRYN SINNOTT

Plaintiff/Respondent

AND

THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants/Appellants

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Fennelly delivered the 12th day of July, 2001.

I agree with the judgments of Hardiman and Geoghegan JJ, in the case of Mr Jamie Sinnott, insofar as they state that the

constitutional duty of the State to provide for free primary education is owed to children and not to adults. I agree in particular with

the analysis by Hardiman J of the language of the Irish and English texts of Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution.

I do not think it necessary or desirable to consider in the present case the quality as distinct from the duration of the education

which the State is obliged to provide, i.e. whether a person in the plaintiff’s tragic condition was ever in a position to enjoy it. The

State’s decision to admit that the plaintiff’s constitutional rights were infringed and not to contest the award of damages renders that

issue moot. The comments on that issue contained in several judgments delivered today are therefore, obiter.

It follows also that there is no continuing breach of the plaintiffs constitutional rights. There is, therefore, no need for any declaration

either as to the future. I agree with the proposal of Geoghegan J for reformulation of the declaration. As the State is not contesting

the payment of any part of the damages awarded to the plaintiff, including the payment for Applied Behaviour Analysis, there is no

need to consider the issue of separation of powers. I do not think the High Court order, properly considered and certainly as it is now

to be amended, does other than provide a sum of money for the plaintiff for the purpose of providing that type of educational service.

That is part of the award of damages, which is not under appeal.

As to the claim of Mrs Sinnott I agree with the judgment of the Chief Justice