Teacher Enoch Burke has been told by the High Court that he will not be released from prison for Christmas and will stay in jail until he gives an undertaking not to trespass at the school where he used to work.
Mr Burke was ordered back to prison two weeks ago for contempt of court by continuing to turn up at Wilson's Hospital School despite a court order directing him not to trespass.
The judge accused Mr Burke and his family of engaging in the most deliberate, sustained and concerted attack on the authority of the civil courts and the rule of law in this country in recent times.
The court also heard that the Attorney General is considering a request from the judge to consider taking criminal contempt of court proceedings against Mr Burke, his brother Isaac, mother Martina and sister Ammi for their conduct in court.
The dispute between Mr Burke and the school has been going on since August 2022. Mr Burke has spent more than 500 days in prison for refusing to abide by court orders. He claims he is turning up for work at the school as his right. The courts have usually ordered his release from prison during the school holidays. However Mr Burke usually returns to the school when it reopens.
In his ruling last month, Mr Justice Brian Cregan said fines and the appointment of security guards had failed to stop Mr Burke turning up at the school and there was no option but to imprison him again.
At this morning’s hearing, Mr Burke again did not give a guarantee that he would abide by the court order if he was released. Mr Burke said he did not accept that he was in contempt of court, and said he respected the laws of the land. He said he was in jail because he would not tell lies and refused to comply with his principal’s instruction to use a new name and they/them pronouns for a pupil.
No 'preferential treatment'
Judge Cregan said Mr Burke was in blatant contempt of orders of the court and no amount of wishing it away would wash that away. The judge said he was not now going to review the matter on 18 December as originally planned.
He told Mr Burke the court was not going to release him at Christmas, Easter or during the Summer holidays and he said he would not be released until he purges his contempt by agreeing to stay away from the school.
The judge said he would be treated like any other person in contempt of court and would not get "preferential treatment" by being released during school holidays.
Mr Burke said he had never asked for preferential treatment or a "Christmas gift". He said he had simply asked for the court to be truthful. At one point he said he was "speaking for the people of the country". Judge Cregan told him he was not an elected representative.
He awarded the costs of the application to send Mr Burke back to the jail against Mr Burke in favour of the school, the Department of Education and the receiver appointed to Mr Burke’s bank account.
The court also heard that a Disciplinary Appeals Panel will be convened by the Department of Education to hear Mr Burke’s appeal against his dismissal from the school, on 13 December.
Mr Burke told the court it was his position that this appeal should not proceed until he takes a further appeal to the Supreme Court. He said there were two Court of Appeal judgments in his case which had "diametrically opposed" findings about what he said was the most important issue facing the Appeals Panel – why he was disciplined by the school in the first place.
Mr Burke said the first judgment found there was no evidence that he was disciplined for his views on transgenderism, whereas the second judgment found the substance of his objections to the principal was a factor in the disciplinary procedure.
Mr Burke confirmed he had written to the Court of Appeal about this issue and now intended to bring the matter to the Supreme Court.
The judge said whether the disciplinary appeal should go ahead was an issue for the appeals panel.
Appeal against judge's ruling
The final issue the judge dealt with this morning was an application by Mr Burke to have the judge’s ruling last week amended.
He objected to the judge’s description of him as "a baleful and malign presence… an intruder, stalking the school, its teachers and its pupils". He also objected to being described as a potential danger to teachers and pupils.
He suggested the judge had ruled that teachers and pupils had filed affidavits in the case which was not true.
Mr Burke handed in definitions of the words "baleful" and "malign" saying baleful means threatening to cause harm.
However, Mr Justice Cregan said Mr Burke had obviously got his definition by googling and this definition was not reflected in the Oxford English dictionary which was the definitive source.
He said Mr Burke did not get "brownie points" because he had not engaged in physical violence.
Mr Burke said he was not roaming around the corridors as stated by the judge and he said stalking was a criminal offence.
He said he treated all the members of the school community with respect.
The judge told him this was utter nonsense. He said the school did not want Mr Burke present and had hired security guards to stop him.
He told him he was a trespasser and should not be anywhere near the school and was stalking the school like Hamlet stalking Elsinore. He said Mr Burke was living in "fantasy land".
Mr Burke accused the judge of spreading disinformation, but the judge said there had been an avalanche of lies and disinformation from Mr Burke and his family about why he was in jail. The judge said he would give his decision on Mr Burke’s application on another date.
