Hearing of Teaching Council inquiry into Enoch Burke allegations set to be postponed, court told

Teaching Council agrees to accommodate preliminary applications the jailed schoolteacher may seek to make

A fitness-to-teach inquiry was scheduled to start on Wednesday to consider allegations of professional misconduct against Enoch Burke. File picture: Brian Lawless/PA

A scheduled Teaching Council inquiry into allegations against Enoch Burke is set to be postponed following the council’s agreement to accommodate preliminary applications the jailed schoolteacher may seek to make.

A fitness-to-teach inquiry was scheduled to start on Wednesday to consider allegations of professional misconduct against Mr Burke.

The allegations in the main arise from complaints relating to Enoch Burke’s trespassing at his one-time workplace, Wilson’s Hospital School, in breach of court orders. Enoch Burke is currently in jail over his contempt of these orders.

On Monday, Mr Burke initiated High Court proceedings against the members of a panel convened to hear the fitness-to-teach inquiry: Chairperson Andy Pike, Adrian Guinan, and Clodagh O’Hara. He sought an injunction halting the scheduled hearing from going ahead.

When the matter came before Mr Justice Micheál O’Connell on Tuesday, lawyers for the director of the Teaching Council sought to be joined to the case, highlighting the director’s central role in the disciplinary process.

The director essentially operates as the “prosecutor” in a Teaching Council fitness-to-teach inquiry, the court heard.

Enoch Burke objected to the joining of the director of the Teaching Council to the proceedings.

He submitted that the panel was legally obliged to be independent of the director of the Teaching Council.

During the protracted hearing, Mr Burke, for over 30 minutes, repeatedly asked the judge to make enquiries as to how the director became aware of his proceedings against the panel.

In the repetitive over-and-back, the judge consistently denied Mr Burke’s request for the judge to ask counsel for the Teaching Counsel director, Eoghan O’Sullivan BL, about the issue.

On occasion, Mr O’Sullivan rose to his feet and indicated to the court his willingness to provide information on how his client became aware of the proceedings. However, Mt Burke insisted on the judge asking for this information.

During the exchange, Enoch Burke unsuccessfully made an application for the judge to recuse himself from hearing his case.

Mr Burke said he had “serious concerns” about the judge’s refusal to ask Mr O’Sullivan the question, and accused the judge of not acting fairly and impartially. The judge noted that this was a serious accusation to make.

The judge directed Enoch Burke’s mother and sister Martina and Ammi to leave the courtroom during the exchange, following repeated disruptions.

“You’re insisting I bow to your demand and I’m not going to bow,” the judge told Mr Burke.

The judge said Mr Burke had asked him “probably 40 times” to ask Mr O’Sullivan about the issue, and had refused him 40 times. “The 41st [time] isn’t going to be any different.” 

Mr O’Sullivan ultimately told the judge that Enoch Burke had served the proceedings on two Teaching Council email addresses. A staff member at the council then forwarded the case documents to the director’s solicitors.

Mr O’Sullivan said there was nothing untowards about this, noting that the director is a party to the ongoing fitness-to-teach process.

The judge made an order joining the director of the Teaching Council to the proceedings, noting the court’s discretion to join parties to proceedings for the purposes of adjudicating effectively on issues in dispute.

Mr O’Sullivan told the court that his client proposed allowing Enoch Burke to make various preliminary applications on Wednesday ahead of the scheduled inquiry hearing.

Given Mr Burke was raising issues of bias against the panel chairperson Pike, he could make a recusal application before the panel on Wednesday, counsel said. The panel was also open to Mr Burke making an adjournment application, he said.

Regardless of the outcome of those preliminary applications, Mr O’Sullivan said the director was not proposing to call evidence in the inquiry on Wednesday.

Counsel later stated that there was “no reality” to the substantive hearing proceeding in the short term. “If [Mr Burke] wants to come back to court tomorrow he’ll have time to do so,” Mr O’Sullivan said, adding that the High Court case may be rendered moot.

Enoch Burke agreed to the proposal, noting that this was without prejudice to his position in the High Court proceedings.

The judge adjourned the matter generally.