Enoch Burke has a week to pay a fine of almost €24,000 for contempt of court up to the beginning of this month, or face action to enforce the payment, the High Court has ruled.
In a judgment issued today, the court said it would take steps to allow Mr Burke's former school to enforce the fine covering the period up to 1 March.
The appropriate steps to be taken by the school could include the sequestration of Mr Burke’s assets the court said.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said he had come to the view that the secondary school teacher was continuing to breach the order directing him to stay away from Wilson’s Hospital School in Co Westmeath, either because the fine was too low or because he did not really believe the fines would ever be enforced.
The judge said he would not increase the daily fine of €700 he imposed at the end of January "at this stage".
But he said he would "crystallise" the amount of money due as of 1 March and "perfect" or finalise the court’s order, allowing the school to take the appropriate steps to enforce the fines.
The judge said there were clear and obvious steps that could be taken including the sequestration of Mr Burke’s assets.
As and from 4pm on 23 March, he said, the school was free to take whatever measures it wished to take to enforce the fines.
Mr Justice O'Moore said the daily fine of €700 would continue to run until the injunction was either set aside or Mr Burke purged his contempt.
The judge said both sides would be notified of the next review date at which Mr Burke’s compliance with court orders from 2 March onwards would be reviewed.
Mr Justice O'Moore described Mr Burke’s continuing disobedience of a court order as "conscious, ceaseless", "egregious" and "deliberate".
He noted that the evidence of the school was that Mr Burke had breached the injunction "at the first opportunity" and had breached it every day since the fines were imposed on 26 January, except for days when the school was officially closed or he was in court in relation to ongoing litigation.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
'Disruption and unease'
According to the school principal, Frank Milling, Mr Burke’s presence was causing "considerable disruption and unease" for staff, students, parents and the wider school community and was "inimical to the proper functioning of the school".
This was rejected by Mr Burke who stated that he had support from "various quarters".
The judge said the fact that the police felt it appropriate to arrest him on school premises did not suggest that his presence was "particularly helpful".
He said Mr Burke’s claim that he had caused "no disruption at the school" was not consistent "to put it mildly" with the evidence put forward by the school.
The judge said Mr Burke could have complied with the court order, without violating his religious beliefs but he had chosen not to do so. He said it was not Mr Burke’s entitlement to determine whether or not court orders were lawful.
Judge O'Moore commented that a submission by Mr Burke that he had at all times conducted himself in a proper manner in these proceedings was "self-praise" that beggared belief.
He said a person who had refused on utterly spurious grounds to comply with a court order for six months, had not behaved properly.
The judge had also criticised Mr Burke’s "baseless traducing" in some of his submissions of other High Court judges, and his disruption of two sittings of the court in February.
He ruled the school was entitled to the costs of two motions, which had been brought before the court.
Finally, the judge said he had received an unusual letter from Mr Burke yesterday. This letter expressed Mr Burke's concern that he was being fined for breaching an order obtained by what Mr Burke described as "false statements".
Judge O’Moore said he had already ruled that incorrect statements in affidavits filed by the school should be brought to the attention of the relevant judges who made orders based on these documents. He said both the school and Mr Burke were free to do this.
The judge said these judges were the best people to decide if their orders were influenced by the use of "false" evidence of any kind.
He said Mr Burke had not explained in his letter why he had not taken up the proposal to go back to the relevant judges and ask them to revisit their orders.
'False statements'
In his letter, Mr Burke said the "false statements" were relied on by the school in its applications to the court last year for injunctions, including the injunction granted in September directing him to stay away from the school.
The school’s position is that the inaccuracies in the original documents do not impact on the substantive matters in the case and were not relevant to the orders made by the court.
Issues arose between Mr Burke and his employer after what the school said was a request from a student and the student’s parents to use a new name and "they/them" pronouns.
Mr Burke objected publicly to what he said was a "demand" to "accept transgenderism" at a school event the following month.
The school initiated disciplinary proceedings against him after concerns were expressed by the then principal, Niamh McShane, about his conduct.
He was suspended on full pay and the injunction was granted after he refused to stay away from the school despite his suspension. He is appealing against his dismissal from his position in January.
The court has already heard that the inaccuracies in the school's documents relate to the fact that only one parent was present at a meeting in May last year with the student in question and not both parents as the school had stated.
The second inaccuracy was that the then principal, Ms McShane, had been at the meeting when she had not been present for most of that meeting.
The Court of Appeal heard earlier this month that solicitors and barristers are now acting for the student in question.
The court heard the student's family were concerned about inaccurate information being put before the court and that there had been correspondence between their solicitors and the school since January.
