The Supreme Court has said it will not grant secondary school teacher Enoch Burke an injunction to drop disciplinary proceedings over allegations against him unless he complies with court orders.
Judge Conor Dignam ruled that the balance of justice would favour Mr Burke being granted the injunction against the Board of Trustees at Wilson’s Hospital in County Westmeath.
But the judge ruled that Mr Burke’s continued refusal to comply with court orders tilted the balance against issuing the orders he was seeking.
However, he has scheduled the matter for tomorrow morning so that Mr. Burke can consider carrying out orders against him.
Meanwhile, the High Court has until the end of next week to rule on a request from the school board to seize Mr Burke’s assets or fine him for continuing to defy a court order.
Mr Burke has continued to attend Wilson’s Hospital School since it reopened after the Christmas holidays on January 5, despite a restraining order issued in early September requiring him to stay away from school.
He was jailed on September 5 for violating the court order and was released from Mountjoy Prison on December 21.
Burke established a strong case – judge
The judge stated that he was perfectly satisfied that Mr. Burke had made a valid argument that he could probably prove that the headmaster’s report had been discussed at the meeting to which he had not been invited.
He said even Mr. Burke, given the particular facts of the case, will likely be able to prove that the director’s attendance at the meeting was unlawful.
In this case, the judge affirmed that the client was not only the one who prepared the report initiating the disciplinary proceedings, but was also responsible for some of the alleged grossly negligent conduct. The judge found that Mr. Burke had valid reasons to argue that the report itself was flawed.
Goods issue should be decided next week
Earlier, Mr. Burke told the court that the school’s request to have its assets confiscated was disgraceful and absurd. He said the school is trying to take away everything he owns for expressing his religious beliefs.
The school’s lawyers told the court that the chairman of the board of trustees gave Mr Burke a letter on January 6, urging him to leave the school and pledging not to return.
Barrister Rosemary Mallon said Mr. Burke did not walk away or commit. But she said the school didn’t want him to be in prison again. Because the school wanted to carry out the disciplinary hearing scheduled for Thursday.
Mr Burke said the court should not consider the school’s “disgraceful” proposal.
The teacher said it was absurd that he was on trial when he should have been teaching his class.
Mr Burke said the court had no right to consider such a request and that the charges themselves were completely unconstitutional.
He said he was instructed by his school to engage in transgenderism and was kicked out at his principal’s request. He claimed the subsequent court orders were unlawful.
Mr. Burke said he objected to his portrayal as some sort of “base criminal” who deliberately went out of his way to disregard law and order. He said he would always obey the law, but not when a court order was manifestly unconstitutional and unlawful.
He said the school was breaking the law and any seizure would be outside the court’s legal authority.
He said the motion should be dismissed in its entirety and that the court could not play a role in dishonoring and disregarding religion. He said it was coercion or coercion against one’s conscience, which the principal and the court had attempted.
The court has previously heard that the dispute between Mr Burke and the school arose after the then-principal emailed staff asking them to address a student by a new name and pronouns “they/them”.
Ms Mallon said the Education Department had refused to disclose Mr Burke’s salary to the principal due to the GDPR, but believed it was in the region of €48,000 a year and had no further information on other assets.
The judge said he will announce his decision by Friday next week.
Mr. Burke questioned why it took so long, as the school’s application was clearly so unconstitutional.
The judge replied that many people came to the court asking for an immediate decision on their case. They are often misled, he said, and have unrealistic expectations.
Tell us your thoughts in the Facebook post and share this with your friends.