ENOCH BURKE’S CASE has been before the High Court for over two years, yet it remains unclear how the matter will be resolved.
The teacher has spent over 500 days in prison for repeatedly violating a court order to stay away from Wilson’s Hospital School since August 2022. He has failed to purge his contempt or agree to obey the order.
He was released from prison before Christmas, the third such time he has been released.
During the hearing, Mr Justice David Nolan said it appears Burke is exploiting his imprisonment and is likely doing so while under the influence of others.
The judge urged him to give up his repeated contempt of court. But on Monday, Burke returned to Wilson’s Hospital School.
The case has been before the courts since August 2022 and it remains unclear how it will be resolved.
In August 2022, Wilson’s Hospital School sought an injunction after it claimed that Enoch Burke interrupted a church service held to mark the school’s 260th anniversary, which was attended by clergy, staff, past and present pupils, parents, and board members.
The school alleges that at the event, Burke said that his then-principal should withdraw a request for teachers to address a transitioning student by their preferred pronouns.
The school also alleged that Burke later approached the principal and made similar remarks to her, and that the principal told Burke she would speak to him at an appropriate time and place about the issue, before she walked away.
It was claimed that Burke then followed the principal and questioned her loudly, prompting other people to stand between the two of them.
The school initiated a disciplinary process against Burke over this incident, resulting in him being placed on paid administrative leave, pending the outcome of the process.
However, when Burke continued to show up at the school, Wilson’s Hospital School asked for a court order because its board claimed this was not abiding by the terms of his suspension and that he was disrupting the schools and its students.
Burke continued to turn up at the school, prompting the school to ask the courts to take further action; he was finally jailed for contempt of court in September 2022 when he turned up at the school for breaking yet another injunction.
It is the ongoing breach of this order that led to Burke’s arrests and imprisonment. He remains on paid administrative leave from the school pending the outcome of the disciplinary process.
Burke has been released from prison three times, each time without purging his contempt, which would have seen him released from prison at any time.
In March 2023, a judge imposed a fine on Burke, ordering him to pay €700 for every day he turned up at the school in contravention of the court order.
Burke continued to return to the school and was imprisoned again for breaching the court order.
Last month, a hearing heard that there have been 41 court orders made by the High Court alone in the case, including orders for Burke to pay fines which now amount to €193,000 and have not been paid.
The court also heard that the cost of keeping Burke in Mountjoy Prison is €84,067 annually, or €1,600 a week.
Upon releasing Burke from prison last month, Judge David Nolan last month increased the €700 daily fine for contempt of court to €1,400 and urged Burke to give up his repeated contempt of court.
Nolan also directed that representatives of the Department of Finance and the Attorney General should attend court this month to explore what mechanism can be used to enforce the fines.
During a court hearing in March last year, a High Court judge noted that Burke continues to be paid his salary, pending his appeal against Wilson’s Hospital School’s decision to dismiss him.
Last month, the court heard that Burke is still being paid his salary.
Solicitor Jack O’Brien, a partner in Keoghs Ireland LLP (formerly OBL), told The Journal that the case is an unusual one. However, he said there have been similar cases where people have spent very considerable time in prison for refusing to purge their contempt.
He cited as an example the case of the Rossport Five in 2005, where five men spent 94 days in prison for breaching a High Court order that they stop protesting the construction of a gas pipeline by energy company Shell in Co Mayo.
The five men were released after lawyers for Shell asked that the court order jailing them be lifted when it was decided the works were not going to continue, meaning the injunction that they breached was effectively redundant.
In 2009, a lawyer in the United States was released after spending 14 years in prison for contempt of court, believed to be one of the longest imprisonments on a civil contempt charge in US history.
H. Beatty Chadwick was released after the court concluded that it was unlikely he would comply with the court order to make provisions to his former wife.
O’Brien said that in cases such as these, “circumstances can change that may result in continued imprisonment for contempt not being suitable on a continued basis “.
In almost all contempt cases, the option to return to court and purge contempt is always open to the offending party.
“That option is clearly open in this matter at any time, as the High Court have clearly outlined,” O’Brien said. “It is open to anybody that’s been incarcerated for contempt at any time to come before the courts to purge such contempt with a view to resolving same.
“I think the courts recognise that people can feel strongly about something, and they are willing to go to prison for it. But very often, after a period in prison, they reflect on it, and the courts, in recognising that, allow them come back before the court and purge their contempt, apologise, obey orders, and then they likely would be released.”
O’Brien said court decisions to jail those who refuse to purge their contempt “are made with some reluctance”.
“It is an order of absolute last resort,” he said. “There is often a way out for somebody, and the courts will be open to that, but at the same time, they will make the sanction to demonstrate the court’s authority.”
In relation to other options of enforcement in such cases, O’Brien said: “There are provisions in the High Court rules to sequester assets and the Companies Acts have provisions to deal with such situations against the assets of a company.”
When assets are sequestered, they remain in possession of the affected party until they decide to purge their contempt or until the court orders what will be done with them.
“This could be considered in circumstances of ongoing breaches of any court order. That’s obviously a matter for the courts to consider and tailor orders in any set of circumstances,” O’Brien said.
“I think that the courts, when they’re imposing these sanctions, and indeed the releases, they set out very clearly the reasons for it and they may allow an opening or a resolution, but they will usually state clearly that if there are further breaches of the orders that they look at different remedies.”
O’Brien said as it stands, there does not seem to be any other options for resolution in the case.
“As long as someone is going to disobey a court order, there will be the ultimate sanction. The other remedies such as sequestration of assets or fines can be made but the enforcement of same often depends on the scale of assets or otherwise .”
O’Brien does not believe so.
“My view would be that where anybody is going to wilfully and continually disobey a court order, whilst that is unfortunate and it requires repeated orders for attachment or committal, I believe it actually redefines or reasserts the courts ultimate authority ,” he said.
“Because they will continually make orders for incarceration if necessary and if no other remedy is working. I think it highlights the court’s authority to ensure that Court orders are obeyed, and if they are not, they will be patient in terms of sanction ”
Could such a case make other defendants less likely to obey a court order or pay court-ordered fines? “Not at all. I believe in any high profile imprisonment for contempt serves as a stark reminder to all,” O’Brien said.
“I think the circumstances referred to are quite unique, and it is noted the court has indicated it may examine options for monetary enforcement.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say