Enoch Burke leaves Mountjoy for trip to court where he brands developments a ‘scandal’

Enoch Burke’s mother said the latest developments were ‘disgraceful’

A disciplinary appeals body has temporarily agreed not to take any further steps in reviewing the dismissal of Enoch Burke from Wilson’s Hospital School.

Mr Burke, who is in prison for civil contempt relating to the dispute with the school, sought a temporary injunction against the Disciplinary Appeals Panel (DAP) at the High Court on Thursday.

He has been detained in Mountjoy Prison since late November for breaches of a court order directing him not to trespass at Wilson’s Hospital School in Co Westmeath, where he worked as a teacher.

He has been engaged in a legal dispute with the board of the school stemming from a request in 2022 from the then-principal that a student be addressed by a new name and pronoun. Since then, Mr Burke has been found to have repeatedly trespassed on school property in breach of court orders.

He has also been engaged in an appeal process with the DAP over his dismissal with the school. The DAP had been due to reconvene on his case on Saturday. Mr Burke sought a temporary injunction in relation to the DAP hearing over his “purported dismissal”.

e sought the injunction against the DAP issuing recommendations on his appeal – which had been due to be issued this week – as well as “from taking any further steps” on his appeal. Padraic Lyons SC, for the DAP, said his clients were, “on an interim basis only”, to provide an undertaking to postpone the resumed hearing and take “no further steps” to progress the appeal.

He asked the court to allow his clients until January 16 to deliver a replying affidavit, and for the matter to be heard on the chancery list on January 21. Mr Burke said these terms were not acceptable to him “at all” and added that the DAP could have issued a replying affidavit this week.

He said he wanted the matter to be dealt with that day rather than pushed back two weeks. He said he had been in prison for more than 550 days relating to the dispute and claimed this was a “scandal”. Mr Burke said he had only been told of the DAP’s position that day, after members of his family had travelled three hours to come to court.

His mother Martina said it was “disgraceful”. Ms Justice Emily Farrell said the DAP had given an undertaking that the hearing would not proceed and they were “asking for a little further time” for the affidavit. He said there was no prejudice to him and he had the benefit of the protection he was asking the court for.

e sought the injunction against the DAP issuing recommendations on his appeal – which had been due to be issued this week – as well as “from taking any further steps” on his appeal. Padraic Lyons SC, for the DAP, said his clients were, “on an interim basis only”, to provide an undertaking to postpone the resumed hearing and take “no further steps” to progress the appeal.

He asked the court to allow his clients until January 16 to deliver a replying affidavit, and for the matter to be heard on the chancery list on January 21. Mr Burke said these terms were not acceptable to him “at all” and added that the DAP could have issued a replying affidavit this week.

He said he wanted the matter to be dealt with that day rather than pushed back two weeks. He said he had been in prison for more than 550 days relating to the dispute and claimed this was a “scandal”. Mr Burke said he had only been told of the DAP’s position that day, after members of his family had travelled three hours to come to court.

His mother Martina said it was “disgraceful”. Ms Justice Emily Farrell said the DAP had given an undertaking that the hearing would not proceed and they were “asking for a little further time” for the affidavit. He said there was no prejudice to him and he had the benefit of the protection he was asking the court for.

She said she was not satisfied there was any prejudice to Mr Burke in this decision, adding that his imprisonment was not directly related to the disciplinary proceedings although it was “obviously for allied reasons”. Mr Burke said: “Not as I see it.”