While primary education in the case of a normal child might be regarded as education up to the age of 12, the period may have to be extended in the case of handicapped children. In that sense, the arbitrary choice of the State of age 18 was not necessarily illogical as, in the perception of most, a child became an adult at 18.
He agreed with the conclusions of Mr Justice O'Hanlon in the O'Donoghue case that primary education for the handicapped required a new approach in respect of age of commencement, duration and continuity. However, he found nothing in the O'Donoghue decision to support the view a disabled child might be entitled under Article 42 to some kind of education or training for the rest of their lives or indeed into adulthood. He accepted the duty does not extend beyond the age of 18.
The ongoing education into the future which the High Court considered the State was bound to provide for Jamie was obviously highly desirable. It might well be the Minister for Education was at any rate now legally obliged to provide such services under the Education Act, 1998.