Burke to be fined €700 for each day he attends school

The High Court has ruled that teacher Enoch Burke should be fined €700 for every day he refuses to comply with a court order to stay away from Wilson’s Hospital secondary school.

In his judgement on Thursday, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said that he was giving Mr Burke, who was purportedly dismissed from the school last week following a disciplinary hearing, until Friday 27th to decide if he wishes to comply with the order directing him to stay away from the Westmeath school.

Mr Burke was jailed for 108 days, before being released without purging his contempt before Christmas, over his refusal to comply with the order.

Following his release, he was warned by Mr Justice O’Moore that his liberty depended on his compliance with the order to stay away from the school.

Wilson’s Hospital School returned to court seeking orders to either sequestering or removing Mr Burke’s assets or fine him over his repeated refusal to comply with the order since the start of the new school term on January 5 last.

Mr Justice O’Moore, in his decision, said that in light of the ongoing refusal a daily fine was “the correct response”.

Mr Burke, he said, had “made it plain that he will continue to disobey the order” made by the High Court last September.

In light of the ongoing contempt, “further measures needed to be taken”, the judge added.

The judge said that the daily fine of €700, or €4900 per week, is to be imposed on Mr Burke, commencing this Friday.

This figure “should persuade Mr Burke to end his utterly pointless attendance at a school that does not want him at its property”, the judge said.

If the fine does not have the desired effect, it can always be increased, the judge added.

The judge agreed that returning Mr Burke to prison was “not immediately attractive”.

The court also said that it did not believe that the sequestration of Mr Burke’s assets would result in the teacher’s compliance with the court order.

The judge said that the matter will be reviewed on February 10 next.

The judge said that he also proposed to deal with the issue of who is to pay the legal costs for court hearings that have arisen out of this “unusual” dispute.

The school, represented by Rosemary Mallon, BL, had argued that in breach of the court order, Mr Burke had returned to the school campus on January 5 following the resumption of classes after the Christmas holidays.

Mr Burke was told by senior staff at the school that he was in breach of a court order, and should not be there, counsel said.

Mr Burke replied that he was “here to teach”.

Mr Burke remained in a corridor in the school, and the school principal and deputy principal set up a workstation in the corridor to ensure that there was minimum disruption at the school.

The school said it did not want to see Mr Burke returned to prison and asked the court to sequester Mr Burke’s assets, arising out of his “wilful refusal” to comply with the court orders, or fine him for his ongoing contempt.

Mr Burke had opposed the application, claiming he has done nothing wrong, and says the granting of such a “preposterous” and manifestly flawed order would breach his constitutional rights.

In his submissions, he criticised the school’s decision to instigate the disciplinary proceedings against him, which he claims centres around the school’s request to call a student by a different name, and to use the pronoun ‘they;, which he said amounts to him participating in transgendarism.

He said that the orders against him were an attempt to criminalise his religious beliefs, including his opposition to transgendarism.

In his ruling, Mr Justice O’Moore said that Mr Burke had insisted during the hearing that he has done “nothing wrong”.

“That is not correct. He has unapologetically and repeatedly breached a court order disrupting the operation of a school which he professes to serve,” the judge said.

In this case the judge said that “contrition was not a factor”, and that Mr Burke’s “defiance had gone on for an extremely lengthy period”.

The disruption caused to the school by the most recent contempt had been set out carefully by the school and had not been contradicted, he said.

On that evidence, it would be “increasingly difficult in the medium term for the ongoing disruption to be tolerated” by the court.

It was not in the public interest for Mr Burke’s “ceaseless contempt of court to be ignored or dealt with in a way that is unlikely to be effective”.

A daily fine of €700, he said, would have an impact on Mr Burke and his finances, the judge said.

The judge also said that Mr Burke had refused to assist the court when questions were put to him about his assets and income, which the court needed to consider before making any decision on the school’s application.

Mr Justice O’Moore noted that Mr Burke has claimed that the order made against him has breached his constitutional rights and had invited the court to set it aside.

Mr Justice O’Moore said that the constitution which Mr Burke “so heavily relies on” sets out a clear hierarchy in respect of the administration of justice.

Decisions of the High Court are not subject to review and reversal by this court, he said. Such decisions are appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, he said.

Mr Burke, he said, has appeals pending before the CoA.

Until they are set aside by the superior courts or the subject of a settlement, orders of the High Court remain valid and must be obeyed.

Mr Burke’s submissions that last September’s order by Mr Justice Max Barrett is void, because the teacher believes it to be, is “entirely misconceived”.

Mr Justice O’Moore added that by inviting the court to set aside that order, Mr Burke was seeking something from the High Court that is “constitutionally impermissible”.

Compliance with the order, the judge also said, in no way compromises Mr Burke’s religious beliefs.

Other issues Mr Burke raised in his submissions, including that the former school principal at Wilson’s Hospital School, Niamh McShane, had made a false reference to the Equal Status Act when giving instructions to Mr Burke how to address a student who wishes to transition from male to female are matters for the full hearing of the dispute between the teacher and Wilson’s Hospital School, the judge said.

Even if the allegation is true, the judge said, “it does not allow Mr Burke to continue to disobey court orders without suffering the consequences”.