Secondary school teacher Enoch Burke has accused the chairman of the board of management of the school where he is employed of lying under oath in relation to the disciplinary process against him.
Mr Burke made the allegation during his application to the High Court for an injunction to stop a disciplinary hearing addressing an allegation of misconduct against him, due to take place next week.
Mr Burke alleges the disciplinary process is unconstitutional, unlawful, flawed and invalid. He wants an order restraining the school from holding the meeting, conducting a disciplinary process or from dismissing him.
Mr Burke told Mr Justice Conor Dignam that to be granted the injunction he must show he has a strong case likely to succeed at a full hearing.
He alleges the disciplinary process breached his constitutional rights. He says there was no serious misconduct by him warranting the school's decision to begin a disciplinary process at stage 4 - which could lead to his dismissal. He alleges that the school had not considered his unblemished employment record and excellent service.
Mr Burke also says the school deprived him of natural justice and fair procedures in the process.
He says a report by the then principal of the school, Niamh McShane, contained findings and conclusions which he had not been given any opportunity to respond to.
He said the report had not ascertained and presented the facts clearly and the report had been read and discussed at a board meeting in August last year to which he was not invited.
Finally, he alleges the outcome of the disciplinary process has been pre-determined.
Mr Burke told the judge each of his points was enough in itself to warrant the injunction being granted but together they overwhelmingly established that he had a strong case.
Mr Burke spent the afternoon outlining the details of each of his points to the judge.
He said contributing to a staff meeting, speaking for two minutes at the close of a chapel service and asking the principal a question after a dinner did not warrant any disciplinary process much less stage 4. He said this was an entirely disproportionate response by the school.
But the proceedings became fraught after he alleged to the court that the chairman of the board of management of Wilson’s Hospital School had lied under oath in a sworn document.
Mr Burke said in an affidavit sworn by the chairman, John Rogers on Monday, Mr Rogers said the report by the principal was read out at a board meeting on 15 August but was not discussed. However, Mr Burke said the minutes of a subsequent meeting a week later, showed that Mr Rogers had twice admitted in response to Mr Burke that the report was discussed on 15 August.
Mr Burke raised his voice as he told the court that what Mr Rogers had said in the affidavit was a lie. He said the school wanted this man who "lied under oath" to decide his future after four and-a-half years of unblemished service.
After the judge said the proceedings would have to finish at 4pm and resume tomorrow, Mr Burke, as well as his sister Ammi and his mother, Martina, became agitated and asked the judge what his view was of lying under oath. They accused the judge of running away and buying himself time on an extremely serious matter.
Judge Dignam described this as an outrageous suggestion and said he would not be making any determinations on any issue when the case was only part heard. He said the school was also entitled to have its side heard. He left the court as Mr Burke, his mother and sister continued to describe the proceedings as "disgraceful" and "regrettable".
The case is due to resume in the morning.
'Some surprise' Burke seeking injunction
Earlier, a different High Court judge expressed surprise at the fact that Mr Burke is seeking an injunction against the school where he teaches when he himself is not complying with a High Court order.
Yesterday, lawyers for Wilson's Hospital School in Co Westmeath told the court they were bringing a motion seeking to have Mr Burke’s assets seized as he had continued to attend the school despite a High Court injunction directing him not to do so.
Barrister Rosemary Mallon told the court that motion was not yet ready to go ahead due to a technical issue and the judge adjourned it to Tuesday morning.
But Mr Justice Brian O’Moore then asked Mr Burke directly if he was complying with the injunction.
Mr Burke said he was turning up at the school for work as he said was his duty. He said he was innocent and had an unblemished record and his only crime was that he had expressed his religious beliefs against "transgenderism".
He said it was his duty to resist a precedent whereby a teacher subject to a disciplinary process for something he described as "manifestly unlawful" could be dismissed and never get their job back because of their Christian beliefs.
The judge said it followed from what Mr Burke had said that he was not complying with the order.
He told Mr Burke it was going to be an issue as to whether someone in persistent breach of a court order can then seek the assistance of the court to get an order to prevent the school or anyone else acting in a certain way.
He said he had learned with "some surprise" that Mr Burke was seeking the assistance of the court in this way and he said that may be of "some consequence in relation to this ongoing litigation".
Mr Judge O’Moore said it was a long-standing saying going back centuries that "he who wishes to seek equity must do equity".
He said he was simply indicating his surprise that Mr Burke, by his own account was not in compliance with a court order but had chosen to seek an order against the school.
Mr Burke described the judge’s comments as improper, extraordinary and uncalled for. He said the original court orders were "manifestly unconstitutional and unlawful" and had been appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Mr Burke was jailed on 5 September for contempt of court after refusing to stay away from the school despite being suspended on full pay following a row about addressing a student with "they/them" pronouns.
He was released from jail shortly before Christmas but has resumed attending the school since it reopened on 5 January.
The disciplinary meeting scheduled to deal with the allegation of misconduct against Mr Burke was due to take place in September.
This arose from a public confrontation between Mr Burke and the then principal of the school at the end of a religious service and dinner in May. But the school previously told the judge it had been on hold because of all the legal proceedings.
It has now been scheduled to take place on 19 January if Mr Burke’s application for an injunction is not successful.
Mr Burke was accompanied in court by his brother, Isaac, sister Ammi, and his father and mother.
