The State's appeal of a High Court judgment last October which upheld an autistic man's constitutional right to education and awarded him £255,000 in compensation was "shameful and cynical", the Association for the Severely and Profoundly Mentally Handicapped claimed yesterday.
Mr Justice Barr issued a landmark decision in the High Court in which he upheld a case taken by Mr Jamie Sinnott (23), an autistic man, and his mother, Kathryn. The Sinnott judgment endorsed the Cork man's constitutional right to appropriate education, but the decision was appealed by the State and this will be heard on March 27th.
Announcing the appeal, the Government indicated it was doing so merely as an exercise to clarify points of law, but at a news conference in Cork yesterday, the Association for the Severely and Profoundly Mentally Handicapped said this was clearly disingenuous.
"In appealing the Sinnott judgment, the Minister for Education is asking the Supreme Court to give him the green light to continue treating the disabled as badly as he likes and as badly as he and other ministers have treated them in the past," Ms Marie O'Donoghue, spokesperson for the association, said.
She added that the text of the appeal document made it clear that the State's aim was to overturn the essential part of the judgment, which guarantees appropriate education to Mr Sinnott, and to overturn the amount paid to him and his mother in compensation.
Ms O'Donoghue said her association was launching a State-wide campaign to garner public support, to warn parents of profoundly or severely handicapped children, and to have the State drop its appeal.
Yesterday, the Department of Education and Science issued a statement saying the Minister for Education, Dr Woods, had both a duty and a responsibility to invite the Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of certain aspects of the High Court judgment.
The statement added that the appeal would not affect the damages or awards which had been paid to Mr Sinnott or his mother and said all of Mrs Sinnott's High Court and Supreme Court costs would be paid by the State no matter what the outcome.
However, in its notice of appeal lodged in the Supreme Court, the State outlines its intention to seek a reversal of the High Court judgment and of the compensation awarded to Mr Sinnott and his mother.