A news story from October 2022 reporting the transfer of Enoch Burke to a new prison cell for his personal safety, allegedly due to irritating fellow inmates, was criticised due to factual inaccuracies, Alan English, the editor of the Sunday Independent, admitted to the High Court.
Despite the acknowledgement of erroneous elements in the article, which the newspaper apologised for and which he personally deems trifling, English did not concede that any defamatory content was present. He stressed his readiness to rectify any blunders.
He brought up the fact that Burke became a topic of national discussion following his refusal to adhere to a court mandate to stop visiting Wilson’s Hospital School in Co Westmeath. Burke was initially incarcerated in September 2022 for disobeying this order, given after he took a stand against being directed to reference a male student by using they/them pronouns. This led to his suspension and later dismissal from the school.
On the third day of Burke’s defamation lawsuit, English highlighted the contrast between public interest and what interests the public. Nonetheless, he noted that Burke met both criteria. He stated that the Sunday Independent aims to echo national discourse, reflecting a wide array of viewpoints on Burke’s case.
Burke is pursuing a defamation case against Mediahuis, the publisher of the Sunday Independent, as well as its editor, Alan English, and reporter, Ali Bracken. This follows his claim that a piece published on October 9th, 2022, during his first prison term, contained defamatory information. The article quoted anonymous sources, asserting that Burke had been relocated to a different prison cell due to his disruption of other inmates by persistently airing his blunt opinions and beliefs.
The newspaper issued a public apology on the first day of 2023, elucidating that the change in Mr Burke’s cell was only due to administrative exigencies, not reasons stated in one of their published articles. They vehemently reject any insinuations of slander and argue that the article was a justifiable and objective piece of information that served public interest.
Mr English maintained that he holds the utmost admiration for the author of the article, who has long been a reliable reporter of utmost moral rectitude. He asserted that the reporter had procured the information from a credible and long-established source.
During a detailed examination, Mr English defended against Mr Burke’s allegations on parts of the narrative that had been stated untruthfully, for which the paper hadn’t apologised. English countered Burke’s assertions and hinted that there was a significant likelihood that Burke had indeed been disturbing fellow inmates.
Rejecting Mr Burke’s depiction of the article as a pack of falsehoods, English instead conceded the presence of factual discrepancies, admitting that they held themselves responsible for these.
Previously, Mr Burke had asked his mother to testify. Martina Burke indicated she was utterly aghast and deeply mortified upon reading the article, which she described as wholly fallacious and malevolent.
Mrs Burke, who has known her son for over three decades, described him as introverted and extremely private. She considered the article as a spiteful endeavour designed to unduly tarnish her son’s reputation.
Upon being queried whether she felt humiliation when her son was incarcerated, Mrs Burke clarified that she felt no shame when someone stood by their convictions. She was also queried if she felt aggrieved when he was sent to Mountjoy, to which she responded in negative. She denied allegations that she urged her son to continue his imprisonment.
The defence is scheduled to continue presenting its evidence on Friday, after which legal arguments would be presented by both sides. They dispute Mr Burke’s assertions.