Judge warns Burke over request for injunction
Teacher wants court to intervene in school’s disciplinary action
A HIGH Court judge has warned teacher Enoch Burke that his request for the court to stop his school from potentially dismissing him could be affected by his own refusal to abide by a court order.
Mr Burke yesterday requested an injunction to prevent Wilson’s Hospital School from proceeding with disciplinary action against him next week.
Judge Brian O’Moore observed: ‘It was with some surprise that I heard that despite the fact that you refuse to comply with a court order, you are now seeking the power of the court to injunct the school from doing something.
‘I am simply marking your card, Mr Burke, because that may be a matter of some consequence regarding the ongoing litigation.’
Mr Burke had been suspended and placed on paid leave by the Co. Westmeath school in August, following his objection to a request from the principal to staff that they call a transitioning student by their newly chosen name and the pronoun ‘they’.
He has said he could not do this, as transgenderism did not accord with his Christian belief that there are only two genders, male and female, and raised his objections publicly at a staff meeting, dinner and church service.
When he continued to attend the school last term, the school went to the High Court to obtain an order that he stay away and not teach there, pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings.
He breached that order and was sent to Mountjoy prison for contempt of court. After over 100 days in prison, he was finally released over Christmas, despite not purging his contempt, as the High Court concluded that Mr Burke was exploiting his imprisonment for his own purposes.
Asked yesterday if he was complying with the court order to stay away from the school, Mr Burke replied: ‘I am attending at the school and I have been consistent in that matter.
‘I have been consistent from the start that I am innocent, and that my only crime is that I have expressed my religious belief on transgenderism, and I will not surrender that religious belief, and call a boy a girl or a student by the they pronoun.
‘I have turned up for work as is my duty, not to set down a precedent whereby a teacher who is subject to something that is manifestly unlawful, manifestly unconstitutional, could then be suspended and dismissed from their employment and never get their job back, simply because of their Christian beliefs.’
Judge O’Moore said: ‘So the answer is no… I am summarising your answer in one syllable. It seems from what you have said that you are not complying with the court order.
‘There is going to be an issue, Mr Burke, I think, as to whether or not someone who is in persistent breach of a court order is themselves in a position to seek the assistance of the court to procure an order on an equitable basis, preventing the school or any other person from acting in a certain way.’
Mr Burke said the judge’s comments were ‘extraordinary and improper’ and ‘totally uncalled for’. He said it was incorrect that someone who was allegedly in breach of a court order was somehow not entitled to natural justice, or to come into court and seek injunctive relief, and stated that there was legal precedent to support this.
His motion to prevent the school from proceeding with its disciplinary action was then heard by Judge Conor Dignam.
Mr Burke told the court he was seeking to restrain the school from holding a disciplinary hearing next Thursday, January 19, or on any other date. He said he also wanted to restrain the school from conducting any disciplinary or investigative process, or from dismissing him.
He told the court that he believed that the school’s disciplinary process was unconstitutional, unlawful, flawed and invalid. He said that if the process was not stopped by the court, it would result in a serious injustice to him.
Mr Burke said a full trial of the case between himself and the school would soon be held in the High Court and suggested the disciplinary hearing could wait until that was resolved.
He told the court he had seven grounds on which he had a strong case to rebuff the school’s claims against him.
Among these, he claimed that the disciplinary process was in breach of, and an unlawful interference with, his rights under the constitution concerning his freedom to practise his religion.
He also claimed there was no serious misconduct which could be alleged against him and that there was no justification for the school to move straight to a stage four disciplinary action, which carried the potential outcome of suspension and dismissal.
His application will continue this morning, when the school will have the opportunity to give its response.
The school’s separate motion to sequester Mr Burke’s assets due to his ongoing contempt of court, which was also scheduled to be heard yesterday, will now proceed next Tuesday.
‘I turned up for work as is my duty’