Enoch Burke has requested the High Court to overturn what he perceives is the “seriously defective” and “invalid” order that is the basis of his continuous detention at Mountjoy Prison.
Mr Burke, having spent 389 days in prison for refusing to comply with a court decree prohibiting him from the vicinity of Wilson’s Hospital School in Co Westmeath, stood before the High Court on Friday. He remains behind bars.
The hearing presided over by Mr Justice Mark Sanfey saw Mr Burke being questioned for a review and his willingness to rescind his contempt and to agree to adhere to the decree. Following Mr Burke’s repeated aversion to maintaining distance from the school, the judge ordered him back to prison.
Rejecting his contempt of court, Mr Burke maintains that he has been wrongfully convicted due to his opposition to what he terms “transgenderism”, originated from the school’s directive to refer to a former student using alternate pronouns.
During Friday’s proceeding, Mr Burke urged the court to annul the previous year’s verdict by Mr Justice Alexander Owens that bestowed Wilson’s Hospital a lasting injunction, barring Mr Burke from stepping into the school.
In his appeal, Mr Burke insists that the decree is faulty and requires to be overruled as, according to him, Mr Justice Owens utterly paid no heed to the teacher’s constitutional entitlements to freedom of conscience and liberty in professing and practising religion.
He posits that the judge proclaimed in his dictate that determining the school board’s alleged infringement on his constitutional rights, as expressed by Enoch Burke, was “not compulsory for the court”.
Mr Burke believes this to be “a grave legal miscalculation” as well as “a court’s contravention of its responsibility to maintain the Constitution and the legalities”.
Rosemary Mallon BL, representing the school, mentioned that her client was only briefed about Mr Burke’s appeal shortly ahead of Friday’s hearing. She initially deemed the application as “erroneously understood” and not rightfully tabled before the court.
She went on to state that owing to the onset of the school holidays and the upcoming conclusion of state examinations in the next few weeks, the school would not oppose any decree ordering Mr Burke’s release from prison without him rescinding his contempt.
During the previous summer break, Mr Burke was not put in prison and he maintained his distance from the school throughout that period. However, he was imprisoned once again in September after he attended the school.
She proposed to revisit the subject when the new academic year commences in late August.
Justice Sanfey declared the court’s main focus to be assessing Mr Burke’s intention to either resolve his contempt or prolong his time in jail. He specified that Mr Burke has recurrently demonstrated his reluctance to commit to respecting the order of maintaining distance from the school.
While not rejecting the instructor’s request to revoke Mr Justice Owens’s order, the judge highlighted that usually such High Court verdicts are challenged in the Court of Appeal. He clarified that generally, it’s not permissible for a judge to overrule another judge’s resolution within the same division of the Irish legal structure.
The judge stated that he was not yet ready to assess the application on that Friday, as the school needed additional time to thoroughly respond to such a request. Moreover, he was only willing to examine one preliminary aspect of the request, which is to determine if the court has the authority to review the application in the first place.
The judge deferred the application to a later date this month. However, Mr Burke expressed his dissatisfaction, failing to comprehend the court’s hesitation to review and pass a verdict on his application that brings up grave constitutional matters without delay.
Furthermore, he criticised the court for not handling his request to overturn the ruling, which led to his incarceration amongst ‘murderers,’ ‘thieves,’ and ‘bank robbers.’ Mr Burke stated that any proposition of his release during the holidays was offensive. He clarified that his motive for attending court was to seek justice, not a holiday.
In response, the judge noted that Mr Burke’s statements characterised some of the ‘unsubstantiated rubbish’ the court has had to endure since the inception of the case. While acknowledging the school’s stance regarding the holidays, the judge reaffirmed that court orders must be complied with.
Mr Burke has continuously argued throughout the court proceedings, claiming that his imprisonment stems from his religious beliefs and opposition to what he terms ‘transgenderism’, while rejecting the accusations made against him by the school.