Ireland

Primary tabs

Sinnott v. Minister for Education [2001] IESC 63; [2001] 2 IR 505 (12th July, 2001)

Shortly after the plaintiff, Jamie Sinnott, was born in 1977, doctors discovered he was severely autistic. For the next 22 years of his life, his mother attempted to provide her son with basic speech, language, and motor skills, as well as toilet-training. Unfortunately, she discovered that the few institutions for children with severely physically and mentally disabilities in Cork, Ireland did not meet the continuous education needs of her autistic child. In 1997, Mrs.

Cronin v. Minister for Education and Science

In 2003, four year old Jeremiah Cronin, diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity and autism, was assessed as needing a 32-hour-per-week intensive home-based program to meet his special needs while awaiting placement in Cork CABAS School. His mother instituted an action for injunctive relief directing the Minister for Education (“the Minister”) to provide such home-based tuition for 29 hours per week during the child’s pre-school phase. She claimed that her son was entitled to a free primary education under the Irish Constitution, relying on the Irish Supreme Court’s reference to uph

O’Donoghue v. Minister for Health & Ors, [1993] I.E.H.C.2 (Ir.)

Applicant Paul O’Donoghue was born in November 1984 and contracted Reyes Syndrome, a serious viral infection, at eight months old, suffering brain damage as a result.

Front Line Defenders (The International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders)

Country:

Ireland

Working Group(s) / Area(s) of Work:

OP-ICESCR

Airey v Ireland 32 Eur Ct HR Ser A (1979): [1979] 2 E.H.R.R. 305

Mrs Airey sought judicial separation from her physically abusive husband. As she was unable to conclude a separation agreement with her husband, she sought a judicially ordered separation. She was unable to obtain such an order since she lacked the financial means, in the absence of legal aid, to retain a solicitor. The European Court of Human Rights held this was a violation of her right to access a court for determination of her civil rights and obligations (Article 6). Citing international law and the Convention's intention they said that remedies must be effective not illusory.