NEWS OF A suspended teacher from Ireland who was jailed after breaking a court order barring him from the school he taught at has been misleadingly reported.

Various reports and posts on social media have suggested that the teacher, Enoch Burke, was jailed for refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns.

Multiple international outlets covered the story with headlines that don’t mention Burke’s alleged behaviour, his suspension, or the disciplinary procedure involved.

Instead, they lead with the impression that the teacher was jailed over his use of “pronouns”. Similar claims subsequently went viral on social media, with celebrities including Piers Morgan and Jordan Peterson posting about the case.

However, Burke was not jailed for refusing to address a student by their preferred pronoun: instead, it was because he did not obey a High Court order not to enter the school he taught at.

The school where he worked had sought an injunction against him attending while an unresolved disciplinary process over his behaviour was ongoing.

Misleading coverage

Burke’s case has attracted wide interest in Ireland since the school first appeared before the High Court last week, but it has gone viral all over the world this week after several international outlets reported on it.

Many of those outlets ran with misleading headlines and lead with coverage of Burke’s refusal to address a student by their preferred pronouns. 

The New York Post ran the story with the headline: “Irish teacher suspended from school, jailed over transgender pronouns flap”.

The paper’s report said, misleadingly, that Burke was “jailed for contempt of court after he refused to use the correct pronouns to address a transgender student.”

Meanwhile, CBS reported: “Teacher jailed for contempt of court after refusing to use student’s gender-neutral pronouns.”

In the UK, The Daily Telegraph’s headline read: “Teacher jailed in row over use of pronouns for transgender pupil”.

On Twitter, Piers Morgan tweeted that Burke was “Jailed for not wanting to call a singular person ‘they’”, and former British MEP Martin Daubney said “a teacher has been jailed after he refused to use student’s gender-neutral pronouns.”

Versions of the story were also posted to Reddit with misleading headlines, while a popular Facebook post featured a photo of Burke with the caption: “Teacher jailed for refusing to use student’s gender-neutral pronouns”.

The case

However, none of those reports accurately reflect why Burke was jailed or even what the school’s disciplinary case against him is about.

Burke’s refusal to use a student’s pronouns have nothing to do with his imprisonment by order of the High Court.

The school he taught at sought an injunction after it claimed that 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.

The school then obtained a court order because its board claimed that Burke was not abiding by the terms of his suspension, as he continued to show up to work.

They specified that Burke has not been sanctioned and that no finding has been made against him in terms of the disciplinary process.

The school’s board, represented by barrister Rosemary Mallon, told the High Court that despite being served with and being made aware of an interim injunction to stay away from the school, Burke continued to come to work.

Counsel said that the school’s sole objective from bringing the proceedings is to prevent any further disruption to students at the school.

Burke is alleged to have subsequently returned to the school, telling staff “I am here to work” and “I am here to attend a meeting”.

The school says it therefore sought an interim injunction stopping him from attending or teaching while he remained on paid administrative leave, which the court granted last week.

It was the ongoing breach of this order that led to Burke’s arrest earlier this week.

‘The orders relate to his behaviour’

At the time of writing, the school has not yet made a finding against Burke over his use of pronouns. The disciplinary process is ongoing, and the school has not sanctioned him. 

The judge overseeing the High Court case that saw Burke jailed explicitly said that the issues raised by Burke were matters for either a full hearing of the dispute, or the hearing of the school’s disciplinary process – not the court itself.

Burke was arrested for breaking the terms of his paid suspension — i.e. not to enter the the school — as well as the court order forbidding him from attending the school.

Matthew Holmes, a barrister and expert on contempt of court, explained the differences between issues Burke has with the school and the one he has with the law.

“The initial dispute is over pronouns, but the orders relate to his behaviour,” Holmes told The Journal.

“It is how the school says he has conducted the dispute, not the dispute [over pronouns] itself. The school did not seek any order forcing him to teach the child or to refer to the child in any particular way.

“Even if he disagreed with the court order he could have challenged it and, if his case was good, had it overturned. He didn’t do this – instead he broke the court order.

“If people only obeyed the orders they want they’d be unenforceable. They’re court orders, not court suggestions.”

Holmes, who attended the hearing this week at which Burke was sent to prison, also said that the school’s lawyer specifically said that they were seeking the order on a “coercive basis, not a punitive basis”.

That is to say, the school was seeking to have Burke apply with the order not to attend its premises, rather than punishing him for any actions he had taken. 

“They want to force him to stay away from the school until such point as the disciplinary process has finished. They don’t want to punish him for his past behaviour,” he added.

“Instead of either complying with the order, or challenging it if he felt that it was unfair or that his case was good, he breached it by attending at the school.

“Even after the court found he was in contempt, the judge offered to give him five to ten minutes to contemplate the order to jail him, and for him purge his contempt. But he told the court that he would not.”

Conclusion

It is clear from reports about the court case, which explain the school’s arguments and the High Court’s ruling to jail Enoch Burke, that he was imprisoned for breaching an order to stay away from his place of work.

That order was made after Burke continually attended school after being asked not to by his employer because a disciplinary process was ongoing.

The school’s board told the High Court that despite being served with and made aware of an interim injunction to stay away from the school, Burke continued to come to work.

They also said their sole objective was to prevent any further disruption to students, and that no finding has been made against Burke in terms of the disciplinary process in which he is involved.

A legal expert told The Journal that the issues raised by Burke in relation to the use of pronouns are matters for the school’s disciplinary process – but not the High Court.

It is therefore false to suggest that Burke has been jailed for refusing to use a student’s pronouns – rather, he has been imprisoned for refusing to comply with a court order to stay away from his place of work.

Additional reporting by Aodhan O Faolain and Hayley Halpin.

The Journal’s FactCheck is a signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles. You can read it here. For information on how FactCheck works, what the verdicts mean, and how you can take part, check out our Reader’s Guide here. You can read about the team of editors and reporters who work on the factchecks here.