The High Court has quashed the State's refusal to provide school transport to a schoolboy with special needs.
In her judgment Ms Justice Niamh Hyland said she was satisfied to quash the refusal and send it back to the School Transport Appeals Board – whose refusal had prompted the action – for a fresh consideration.
The judge said the reasons given by the board, after it decided to dismiss an appeal against an earlier decision by the Department of Education not to provide school transport for the boy, were inadequate.
The challenge had been brought on behalf of a child, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, who lives in a rural area with his family, and has been diagnosed as having autism.
The court heard that following a consultation with various healthcare and educational professionals last year, it was determined that the boy should attend a primary school, which was not the nearest national school to where his family lives.
The school where it was determined that the boy should attend, the court heard, was found to be the most suitable to cater for his individual needs.
An application for the boy to be provided with school transport to that school was made to the Minister for Education. It was refused because the school was not the nearest school to the boy’s home.
That decision was appealed to an independent body, established by the Department of Education, called the School Transport Appeals Board.
However, in a decision made last year the appeal was dismissed. As a result the boy brought judicial review proceedings against the National Council for Special Education, the Minister for Education and Skills and the School Transport Appeals Board.
No reasons for the decision were given by the appeal board, his lawyers argued.
Unsatisfactory
In her judgment Ms Justice Hyland said that the appeal board’s decision was unsatisfactory.
The appeal body, she said, had a duty to set out its reasons for its decision. Decisions made by the board were “set at nought” if it just announced them without adequately explaining why it had arrived at its decisions.
The judge also held that the lack of adequate reasons undermined the perception that the board was independent from the Department of Education.
The judge said the boy’s family had withdrawn earlier judicial proceedings and had put its full confidence in the appeals process, and was, therefore, entitled to have the benefit of a full appeal process.
In all the circumstances the judge quashed the refusal, and remitted it back to the board for fresh consideration.
The judge also ruled the respondents should pay the boy and his family’s legal costs.