High Court judge to decide next week in Martina and Ammi Burke contempt case

The judge also said he would decide later on Enoch Burke's claim of perjury in an affidavit sworn by the former chairman of the disciplinary appeals panel hearing his appeal against his dismissal from Wilson's Hospital School in Westmeath

Last Friday, Enoch Burke's sister Ammi (left) and his mother Martina Burke (right) were ejected by gardaí from Mr Justice Brian Cregan’s courtroom after interrupting a hearing and shouting at the bench. File photo: Collins Courts

A High Court judge will rule next week on whether Enoch Burke's mother and sister will face a sanction in relation to their behaviour at the High Court last week.

Last Friday, both women were ejected by gardaí from Mr Justice Brian Cregan’s courtroom after interrupting a hearing and shouting at the bench.

Mr Justice Brian Cregan also said he would give a decision later on Enoch's claim of perjury in an affidavit sworn by the former chairman of the disciplinary appeals panel (DAP) hearing his appeal against his dismissal from Wilson's Hospital School in Westmeath.

In a hearing running at various times through the morning on Wednesday, Martina and Ammi were asked to make submissions on why they should not be found in contempt in the face of the court over their repeated interruptions and refusals to sit down during Friday's hearing, despite warnings not to do so.

Martina spent some time saying that her son should not be in jail, how Judge Cregan and other judges had failed to vindicate his constitutional right to freedom of religion and claiming lies were told on behalf of Seán O'Longain, the former chairman of the DAP, which is now being reconstituted due to the resignation of Mr O’Longain and another member.

She also claimed her son was in prison because he refused to comply with a "command" from the former principal of Wilson's Hospital School, Niamh McShane, to use the plural "they/them" pronoun for a singular student and over his decision to "go against the promotion of sodomy and transgender ideology".

The failure of the judges to vindicate that right was a "blot on the judiciary and the blood is dripping from the hands of the judiciary,” she said. In a lengthy submission, Martina repeatedly shouted and banged on the barrister's table she had been invited to come to by the judge.

At one point she claimed the refusal of the judge to refer an affidavit of Seán O’Longain to the DPP for a possible perjury charge contrasted with the case of Nikita Hand/Conor McGregor where the Court of Appeal decided to refer an affidavit in that case for possible perjury.

"It's different strokes for different folks," she said.

Hugh McDowell BL, for the DAP, said the Hand/McGregor case was completely different and it was normal to have one affidavit saying one thing and a claim in a responding affidavit that it was untrue. There was no basis for referral for perjury, he said.

Martina was reminded by the judge it had always been made clear by the courts that Enoch had a right to express his opposition to transgenderism but was in fact in prison because he refused to accept his suspension and dismissal and repeatedly trespassed on the school grounds in breach of court orders.

The judge also told Martina that if Enoch agreed to just stand outside the school to express his beliefs, he would be immediately released from prison. Martina replied he was there for the "protection of citizens" and to prevent overreach by people like Niamh McShane.

The judge said that the courts are there to protect all citizens, including those in the school, and that she was only telling half the truth when she said the case was all about transgenderism when it was also about trespass and breach of court orders.

In her submissions, Ammi criticised the judge over how he dealt with Enoch's perjury application last Friday. She said in three and a half years — during which Enoch has spent some 600 days in prison for contempt — there had been 11 judges who dealt with his case who denied his constitutional rights.

Martina began interjecting and shouting and the judge said he would give his decision later and rose and left the bench.

Enoch Burke cases

Earlier, the judge also reserved judgment on Enoch's application to refer the O'Longain matter to the DPP.

He also said he would refer a €31,000 costs bill related to some of the recent Enoch Burke hearings to the legal costs adjudicator after Mr Burke refused to say whether he would prefer that or for the court itself to measure costs.

Enoch had claimed, in his submissions via video link from Mountjoy Prison, that there could be no payment when it came to dealing with a person's constitutional right to freedom of religion.