School gets extra state funding to pay for security for Enoch Burke

By Gráinne Ní Aodha, PA

Additional State funding is to be given to a school to help pay for security as teacher Enoch Burke continues to attend school grounds.

The Department of Education informed Wilson’s Hospital School that €4,440 would be given to the school to help pay for security costs for the next nine weeks due to the “exceptional circumstances”, a court was told.

Mr Burke appeared before the High Court on Wednesday to represent himself.

The board of management of the Co Westmeath school and Mr Burke have been entangled in a legal dispute stemming from incidents over a request in 2022 from the school’s then-principal to address a student by a new name and pronoun.

Mr Burke, an Evangelical Christian who was a teacher of German and history at the school, has repeatedly argued that the direction was unconstitutional and went against his right to express his religious beliefs.

The school has been granted injunctive relief, restraining him from attending the school, however he continues to attend in breach of the order.

He has been fined €225,000 and imprisoned for 500 days, a figure cited by Mr Burke, for attending the school in breach of the court order.

He appeared in the High Court on Wednesday, on a week when schools are on a midterm break, along with his parents Sean and Martina, brother Isaac, sister Ammi and two other sisters.

The court had heard previously that two vehicles may be sequestered, and a bar on other Burke family members from attending the school grounds may be imposed.

The case also dealt with the fines facing Mr Burke and how they would be paid – a barrister told the court that daily fines of €2,000 for attending the school, in breach of a court order, had been set for “coercive purposes”.

Mr Burke said the court had “completely and entirely” emptied his bank account of thousands of euros and that his entire livelihood has been “taken away”.

Mr Justice Brian Cregan told Mr Burke it was not aware that it was his entire livelihood as he had not submitted a statement of means, despite several invitations to do so.

Rosemary Mallon, a barrister representing the school, also told the court that the Department of Education had recently informed it that it will pay half of the school’s security costs until December.

They said this was due to the “exceptional circumstances” and “dynamic” situation at the school.

After his brother Isaac was removed from court for interrupting proceedings, Mr Burke argued that it was an “absolute scandal” that, after three years of the matter being before the courts that the principal’s initial instruction had not been analysed.

Naming several judges, he said not one “had sniffed” at an issue which he said was “at the heart of this case”.

Mr Cregan said the answer to that was when a court was considering whether the principal’s instruction was invalid, Mr Burke’s conduct in that case was “disgraceful” and he was barred from court.

“You had an opportunity to argue it, but you refused to argue it,” he said.

Mr Cregan then told Mr Burke that raising an issue with whether to call a student by a different pronoun, as it offended his religious beliefs, was “a valid legal issue”.

Mr Burke interrupted to say that that was “not an accurate way to frame it” and claimed that it was “unconstitutional to ask a teacher to set aside their Christian religious beliefs”.

“I understand that argument, it is a good argument,” Mr Cregan said, and added that he had been let go from the school because of his conduct.

“You’re pulling out a lot of stuff out there,” Mr Burke said, to which Mr Cregan replied: “I am engaging with your arguments.”

He then addressed a complaint from Mr Burke that Mr Justice Owens had “never engaged” with the issue of the legitimacy of the then-principal’s initial instruction.

“Why didn’t you appeal the order of Mr Justice Owens?”

Mr Burke said that this was “not the issue”.

“You have made a misstep here by not appealing the order of Mr Owens,” Mr Cregan said.

“It’s not on you to give me legal advice,” Mr Burke said.

“No, it’s not, but I am engaging you on your argument, Mr Burke.”

When Mr Burke asked him if he was “above the Court of Appeal or under it”, Mr Cregan said it was a “ridiculous” question.

Asked again why he did not appeal the High Court order of Mr Owens, Mr Burke said he had answered the question already. The judge said he had not.

“I don’t for the life of me understand why you did not appeal Judge Alexander Owens’ (order).”

Mr Burke replied: “You’re filibustering now.”

After a break for lunch, Mr Cregan asked Mr Burke why he had not attended two previous hearings before him in relation to the case.

“Why were you not here? That’s the fundamental point Mr Burke, you weren’t here, why weren’t you here?”

Mr Burke’s sister, Ammi, stood up to interrupt, to which the judge said she had no right of audience in the court and Mr Burke was “well able” to represent himself.

Arguing over a legal submission issue that arose in the last hearing, Mr Burke said there was “dishonesty on the bench”.

Mr Cregan replied: “If there is any dishonesty in this court, it is from you in relation to why you had been jailed.”

Responding, Ms Mallon said that a Court of Appeal judgment referenced repeatedly by Mr Burke also found that he was “egregiously” in contempt of court.

She also made the point that Mr Burke had never attempted to appeal against Mr Owens’ judgment.

When Ms Mallon was asked by the judge why Mr Burke had not appealed, she said: “I have no idea, judge, and it has never been clear.

“It is incomprehensible that at each juncture that Mr Burke attempts (to argue against) an order he didn’t agree with but has never actually appealed it and is now far out of time.”

Ms Mallon said she was not “at this moment in time” seeking an injunction against some Burke family members from attending the school, but said she would seek further instructions if there was further trespassing.

“The school wants to be a school and at this moment in time the principal, the chair of the board of management and members of the board, members of the community, parents, are all spending far too much time trying to stop Mr Burke breaking the rule of law rather than on running a school and educating the next generation of citizens.”

Mr Cregan asked Mr Burke again why he had not appealed against Mr Owens’s order.

“Asking me questions about my intentions is not an escape route for you to avoid doing justice,” Mr Burke said.

“Mr Burke, where does all this end, from your point of view?” Mr Cregan asked.

Mr Burke replied: “Judge, it ends with you and your colleagues telling the truth.”

Mr Cregan said he would reserve judgment and notify the parties of a decision within a week.

Representatives of the Attorney General, the ministers for Finance and Education and the receiver also addressed the court during the hearing.

The Department of Education has been contacted for comment.