Enoch Burke has failed in his bid to win a defamation suit against the publishers of the Sunday Independent. The court case revolved around an article suggesting he had been transferred to an alternate jail cell for his own protection due to his behaviour upsetting other inmates.
Justice Rory Mulcahy ruled that the article’s content, released in October 2022, was not damaging to Mr. Burke’s reputation. The judge asserted that although the content of the seven disputed paragraphs was inaccurate, the courts do not provide remedies for mere false allegations. He further clarified that for defamation to be proven, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the false statement damaged their reputation.
The incident occurred while Mr. Burke carried out his first sentence for defying an order that forbid him from visiting St Wilson’s Hospital School. Mr. Burke was dismissed from the institution after he publicly refused to use ‘they/them’ pronouns to address a male student. He was temporarily released, but he was later imprisoned, with his situation due for reassessment by another high-court judge this Friday.
Justice Mulcahy commented that noncompliance with a court mandate would inevitably dent anyone’s societal reputation. He also pointed out that a reasonable reader would not have their perception of Mr. Burke’s reputation impacted by an erroneous assertion that he excessively discussed religion following being incarcerated.
Taking aim at the allegation that he continually expressed his religious beliefs to the extent of significantly troubling other prisoners while in jail, the judge stated that this was very much a minor issue in the cacophony created by his refusal to adhere to the pronoun use mandate imposed on him in September 2022.
Mr. Burke brought a case against Mediahuis, the media company responsible for publishing the Sunday Independent, as well as the newspaper’s editor Alan English and reporter Ali Bracken. Despite acknowledging a few inaccuracies in the article, all defendants vehemently denied that Mr. Burke was defamed.
The article citing unnamed sources suggested that Mr. Burke had been reassigned to a different jail cell for his safety due to his frequent vocal expressions of his faith and views, which allegedly upset fellow detainees.
On the first day of the year 2023, the tabloid put forth an apology and provided a clarification that the modification in Mr Burke’s prison cell stemmed from “functional grounds” and bore no relation to what was insinuated in the article. The paper emphatically dismissed allegations of defamation and argued their publication was justifiable and practical, focusing on matters of public import.
However, Mr Justice Mulcahy wasn’t entirely persuaded that the article bore any benefit of public interest. In his judgement, he articulated that if the article had been defaming, the defence of a “fair and reasonable publication” would not be available as an option to the paper’s publishers.
Mr Burke asserted that the publisher had undertaken a “spiteful attack” against him, characterising him as an individual who constantly articulates his religious beliefs to such an extent that it becomes bothersome for others, triggering them to potentially escalate to physical aggression.
The teacher of History and German expressed in court that the paper had committed a “profound and serious slander” which tarnished his reputation.
The defendants, however, negated his accusations.