Topic 2 - Education Flashcards
Ryan v Attorney General [1965]; Meaning of Education
SC here understood education as teaching and training of the child in the best use of their potential.
O’Donoghue v Minister for Health [1996]; Meaning of Education
Case regarding child with severe learning difficulties, whether the state had an obligation to provide for education here.
SC endorsed the Ryan definition, found that the state did have a duty.
O’Shiel v Minister for Education [1999]; Meaning of Education
Case regarding parents who wanted the state to fund a steiner school.
SC: State only has to provide for primary education; can apply a series of criteria (including Irish being taught)
Also commented that State has to take account of parental choice in the range of primary schools receiving - but at the same time should be bent to the whims of parents.
O’Carolan v. Minister for Education and Science [2005] HC; Meaning of Education
Boy with severe autism, provisions had been made for him by the school but parents wanted him to be sent to a facility in Wales.
Held that the standard of education was that it had to be appropriate and reasonable - this what met here.
Parker v Minister for Education; Meaning of Education
Concerned child having LC grades reviewed, but review did not happen before course started.
Humphrey states that Article 42.3 implied protection of higher education as well but thrown out on appeal.
Re Article 26 and the School Attendance Bill, 1942 [1943]; Meaning of ‘Certain minimum education’
Concerned legislation which made it an offence if parents did not ensure that children between the ages of 6 and 14 were receiving suitable education.
- SC found that possibility of a higher standard being prescribed and the the manner of minimum education being prescribed for (not allowed) were saved by the presumption of constitutionality.
- Legislation was struck down on the issue that parents might be exposed to penalties between the child’s 6th birthday and the point at which home-schooling is deemed suitable.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Best [2000]; Meaning of ‘Certain minimum education’
Two parents were being tried for failing to send their children to primary school; they argued that they were doing their best to educated their child at home.
HC found it would be difficult for a judge to find a parent guilty of this offence where the evidence shows they are doing their best, Irish not required to be taught here.
Note economic factors
O’Shiel v Minister for Education [1999]; Meaning of ‘Certain minimum education’
Steiner School case.
Laffoy J: The state is not obliged to fulfill any finance requested by parents for education: reasonable limit set here.
Also made the distinction between the minimum standard that can be imposed on parents and the standard of primary education which the state is obliged to provide; this is of a higher standard
Arnold v Judge McCarthy [2017] IECA; Meaning of ‘Certain minimum education’
Plaintiffs attempted to appeal the decision that they had committed an offence by failing to comply with a duly issued school attendance notice.
Court found that the burden was on the parents to prove that they were educating the child, and no evidence of this was offered.
Crowley v Ireland [1980] SC; Right to free primary education
Case regarding teacher strikes: parents brought proceedings against the state and the union.
SC: Kenny J points out that the state is only obliged to provide ‘for’ primary education. The use of the proposition ‘for’ meant that the state could discharge its duty by supporting other parties who provide primary education - had not been in dereliction of its duty here.
O’Keeffe v. Hickey [2009]; Right to free primary education
Plaintiff was a child who had been physically and sexually abused by teacher.
SC found that the state was not directly responsible for conduct of the teacher.
ECHR appeal where the plaintiff was successful
KRA v Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] HC; Right to free primary education
Deportation case where the applicant looked to avoid deportation.
Court found that even non-citizens were entitled to education - however could not use this at avoid deportation.
O’Donoghue v Minister for Health [1996]; Right to free primary education.
8-year old boy with learning difficulties - parent argued that the his education was not being provided for.
State argued that;
1. The applicant could not be educated due to the scope of his learning difficulties.
2. That the right to free primary school referred to conventional schooling, that children with such learning difficulties could not avail of this.
3. That the state had offered the child a place in a facility in Cork and had thus discharged their duty.
Lost on all three of these grounds;
- Referring to Ryan, held that every child has a capacity to achieve, and that education was the means to maximise this potential.
- State had already made provisions for children with milder learning difficulties; showed that it couldn’t restrict this right to the national curriculum.
- Found that it wasn’t clear that this facility properly dealt with his requirements, set out criteria.
Awarded amages.
Sinnott v Minister for Education [2001]; Right to free primary education.
Issue as to when right to free primary education would expire: beyond the age of 18?
SC: Held that there was not a life-long right to education.
Ignores that people like Sinnott are not in the same situation as others
Ryan interpretation could present a case for continued education; maximising potential
McD v. Minister for Education and Science [2008] HC; Right to free primary education.
Family wanted to retain a home tuition grant - state had offered to provide alternate forms of help but parents did not engage.
HC: Case brought prematurely: could not assess whether alternate measures were adequate as they had not been engaged with.
