A SUPREME Court appeal taken by the State relating to the education of a handicapped boy ended speedily yesterday when agreement was reached.
Ms Marie O'Donoghue, Mahon Drive, Blackrock, Cork, the mother of 12 year old Paul O'Donoghue, who is quadriplegic and mentally handicapped, won her High Court case in 1993. The ruling held that the Ministers for Health and Education, in failing to provide free primary education for Paul and in discriminating against him as compared with other children, had deprived him of his rights under Article 42 of the Constitution.
Yesterday in the Supreme Court, Mr James O'Reilly, for the State, said it was not appealing the High Court's finding that the child was educable. He wanted to emphasise that nothing he said should be taken as any criticism of the child's mother, who was devoted to the care of the child.
The State also accepted its obligations. It accepted the child had an entitlement to free primary education and the child was educable. The services and education of the child would continue.
Mr Paul Sreenan SC, for Ms O'Donoghue, said the child was being educated in Cork. The State was fulfilling its obligations.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, asked Mr O'Reilly what the issue was. The State had conceded that the child was capable of being educated, having regard to his disability, and that education should be provided by the State.
Mr O'Reilly said the manner in which the High Court determined and interpreted the meaning of primary education under the Constitution was fundamentally flawed. The Chief Justice said that did not arise as an issue in this case. The State had conceded that the child was capable of being educated. Mr Sreenan had conceded the State was fulfilling its obligation.
Mr Justice Barrington said if the child was receiving education surely it was not necessary to debate the matter any further.
The Chief Justice said the Supreme Court's function was to hear appeals on the basis of what was at issue between the parties. What was at issue was the right of the child to have an education provided for him by the State. The State had accepted that obligation. What more was there when everyone was agreed?
He said the State and the Minister for Education were acting quite honourably in this case. He asked Mr O'Reilly what more the State could do. The Supreme Court was not there to lay down educational policy.
After an adjournment, a declaration was agreed and the matter was not taken any further. The declaration was that the infant plaintiff was entitled to free primary education in accordance with Article 42 of the Constitution and that the State under the Constitution was obliged to provide for such education. The High Court ruling stands.