Judge 'emphatically rejects' Enoch Burke's claims he did not get a fair hearing
Enoch Burke, with his mother Martina Burke, left, and his sister Ammi Burke leaving the High Court earlier this week.
A High Court judge has said he “emphatically rejects” claims contained in an email by Enoch Burke that he did not get a “fair hearing” in the dispute around his suspension from Wilson’s Hospital School last year.
“He was at liberty to come into court at any stage, and we could have had an intelligent, frank, informed exchange of views,” Mr Justice Alexander Owens told the court on Friday morning. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s a preliminary letter for some onslaught by Mr Burke against me.
Having been absent from court since Tuesday afternoon, Mr Burke sent what Mr Justice Owens described as a “big, long email” to the court on Friday morning.
Mr Burke, with his family members, later stood outside the Four Courts and read out the contents of the letter. Instead of entering the Four Courts, they then walked away from the courts down the quays.
In that email, which was also read in court, Mr Burke reiterated the various claims he made on Tuesday morning, which accused the legal teams for the school of having “tampered with” documents and not providing necessary documents such as WhatsApp screenshots.
“I raised these issues,” Mr Burke said in his letter, according to Mr Justice Owens. “I was repeatedly laughed at, mocked and ridiculed by the judge.”
Mr Burke said solicitors for the school aimed to address these issues he had raised via email but “almost all issued remained unchanged”.
He also said he aimed to serve a subpoena to board of management chair John Rogers on 10.50pm on Monday. The court has heard this week Mr Rogers is currently ill.
“It is not possible for me to accept this,” Mr Burke said in the letter, the court heard. “I cannot proceed. I’m gravely concerned by the actions of the judge in this matter. I’ve been denied a fair hearing in this matter.”
Mr Justice Owens rejected the claims made by Mr Burke. He said Mr Burke’s conduct was “completely and utterly unacceptable”.
“Sometimes it’s necessary to be direct,” he said. “It’s necessary to call a spade a spade. One can be too polite about these things.” He added Mr Burke “should have turned up to deal with this directly in a normal, civilised way”.
Mr Burke was suspended from the Co Westmeath secondary school last year, and was the subject of High Court injunction, which was put in place pending the outcome of the full hearing of the dispute, over his failure to comply with the terms of his suspension which required him to stay away from the school while he was on administrative leave.
The teacher denies any wrongdoing and says his suspension arises out of his opposition to ‘transgenderism’ and a direction by the school to refer to a student who wishes to transition by a different pronoun.
In a counterclaim, he says the disciplinary process against him should be set aside and that it breaches his constitutional rights, including his right to freedom of expression of his religious beliefs.
The school says it was fully entitled to bring disciplinary proceedings against the teacher, and rejects any wrongdoing.
In his closing submission on Friday morning, Mark Connaughton SC, for the school, went through the various incidents heard in evidence during the case related to Mr Burke.
When it came to the stage 4 disciplinary process initiated on foot of a report by then-principal Niamh McShane, Mr Connaughton said she was “undoubtedly making significant allegations against Mr Burke.
He said it was a “valid invocation of this process”.
At a hearing to decide whether Mr Burke be placed on administrative leave last August, Mr Connaughton had “ample opportunity” to prepare himself and put forward his case on this issue.
“He came with his sister to engage in their own agenda,” he said.
Mr Connaughton said the decision to place Mr Burke on administrative leave was “entirely bona fide and for a valid reason”, and this was “unassailable”.
Before counsel finished their arguments, the judge remarked: “He's just being required to call a student by a name and use a pronoun? What's so difficult about that?”
At the close of proceedings, Mr Justice Owens said he was “tempted to give judgment immediately” but opted not to do so.
He also said his “provisional view” was that, even if he finds the school acted entirely incorrectly in these matters, Mr Burke was “not entitled to go back onto their school premises” after his suspension.
He also agreed the injunctions in place in this matter would remain in place for now. He gave no indication as to a date for his judgment.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
