Timing of report on autistic man is criticised

A High Court judge yesterday said it was "ridiculous" that a programme of education for an autistic man was only produced to the man's mother during the middle of her legal action against the State aimed at securing appropriate care and education for her son.

Mr Justice Barr demanded an explanation from the State as to why the report by the Cork-based COPE Foundation, which cares for the mentally disabled, was only produced to Ms Kathryn Sinnott as she resumed her cross examination yesterday morning. The judge said COPE and the State had known about the case for years. He asked, why had the points in the report not been put to the crucial witnesses for Ms Sinnott? (They have completed their evidence and returned to the US.)

Earlier, Mr Michael Gleeson SC, for Ms Sinnott, also complained about the delay in producing the report. Ms Sinnott had been waiting 22 years for a programme of care for her autistic son, Mr Jamie Sinnott, he said. His side would need time to consider the report. Mr James O'Reilly SC, for the State, said he had only received the report himself that morning, as had the Chief State Solicitor's office.

He had made clear to the other side that Ms Sinnott would not be taken short in relation to the report and he was willing for her cross-examination to be suspended to allow her time to consider the report.

He denied the report was conjured out of a hat and said it was prepared in meeting the claim by Ms Sinnott and endeavoured to meet her concerns for her son. The report was based on a review which took place during the litigation.

Mr O'Reilly said press coverage of the action was trenchant and damaging in Cork, where COPE was held in the highest regard. He said Ms Sinnott had her own views about the quality of care provided for her son, but COPE believed the criticism levelled at it was unjustified.

Mr Justice Barr said that was all the more reason why the report regarding Mr Sinnott should have been produced in time. The delay in making it available seemed very unfair and uncaring, he remarked, "or do I put it down just to incompetence?"

Mr O'Reilly said he could only assume it took time to conduct such a review. He was instructed the relevant teaching staff were not available until last week.

In a case of such importance to COPE, its teaching staff were not available, the judge said. "This is getting worse and worse." He adjourned the case for a time to allow Ms Sinnott and two of her witnesses, both educational psychologists, consider the report.

Yesterday was the eighth day of the action by Ms Sinnott, of Ballinhassig, Co Cork, and her son for a declaration that their constitutional rights have been breached by the State's failure to provide free primary education for Mr Sinnott, an order directing the State to provide such education now, and damages.

The Minister for Education and the State deny the claims. They plead that Mr Sinnott has received education and deny they are obliged to provide free primary education for him past the age of 18. The court heard Mr Sinnott was attending The Orchard educational facility in Cork, run by COPE.

After considering the proposed new programme, Ms Marie Louise Hughes, an educational psychologist based in Northern Ireland, said the fact his parents were not consulted in the preparation of this was unforgivable and incomprehensible. She said the programme was a beginning but was not adequate.

The hearing continues today.