Jailed teacher Enoch Burke and three members of his family will not be prosecuted for criminal contempt over their repeated disruption of court proceedings, Attorney General Rossa Fanning told the High Court today.
The Attorney General had been asked by Mr Justice Brian Cregan to consider bringing criminal contempt proceedings against Enoch, his siblings Ammi and Isaac and their mother Martina, over their disruption in court in recent months, which meant they had to be regularly removed by gardaí.
Mr Fanning said he appeared in court in person because he wanted to explain why he had decided not to prosecute at this stage as this was a matter of public interest.
Enoch Burke has been committed to jail for contempt on four occasions, now totalling more than 530 days, over his refusal to obey court orders to stop trespassing on Wilson’s Hospital School in Westmeath which has dismissed him. A decision on his appeal to an independent appeals panel is awaited.
READ MORE
His dismissal followed a dispute between Mr Burke and then Wilson’s Hospital principal Niamh McShane in 2022 over a request that he call a transgender pupil by a new name and addressed by they/them pronouns.
Mr Fanning said criminal contempt was essentially behaviour calculated to prejudice the due course of justice or contempt in the face of the court.
He had given serious consideration to this matter and carefully examined the transcripts and court’s recent judgments. This litigation has raised troubling questions about adherence to the rule of law, he said.
The AG’s “point of departure” was that court orders must be obeyed and deliberate disruption of proceedings by a litigant or anyone else is utterly unacceptable and to be condemned without equivocation.
Enoch Burke is already in prison for civil contempt and the court has had little choice where the imposition of fines has had no effect, he said.
Those fines have amounted to more than €225,000.
Mr Fanning took the view there could be no practical benefit in bringing contempt proceedings against Enoch Burke as even if they were to succeed, it would only result in imprisonment or a fine which would, in truth, only replicate what has already been ordered in the civil contempt.
Taking a criminal contempt prosecution against him would be futile, he said; his liberty remains in his own hands and he “is his own jailer”, he added.
He had reached a similar conclusion in relation to the other three members of the family for a number of reasons.
These include that it would be a matter for a judge to decide whether the line to criminal contempt had been crossed and there were alternative remedies including removal of a disruptive person from a courtroom.
The Attorney General said he also had to have regard to the disproportionate amount of court time being consumed by this case in circumstances where thousands of others are waiting to have their legal disputes heard.
He also had to have regard that any criminal contempt cases would have to go before the President of the High Court who was already burdened with a very heavy court list and the significant cost of all this to the taxpayer.
Mr Fanning said contempt proceedings “may reinforce an unfounded sense of martyrdom but are unlikely to provoke any Damascene conversion” in light of the history of the engagement with Mr Burke, even if they led to “relatively modest” fines or imprisonment given that the proceedings were summary in nature.
Mr Justice Cregan thanked Mr Fanning but said he did not believe the “arid” transcripts had reflected the tone and tenor of what had happened before his court in recent months.
He would reflect on the Attorney General’s comments over Christmas and the court could still, of its own volition, consider bringing contempt proceedings.
The court also heard that a disciplinary appeals panel heard Enoch Burke’s appeal against his dismissal on Saturday and will give its decision within 10 school days which means it could be after Christmas.
The judge said the case would be adjourned to early January for an update on the appeals panel outcome because it may have implications for his continued imprisonment.
Mr Burke, speaking via video from Mountjoy Prison, said the appeals panel was “far from a done deal” in circumstances where the school board had produced a new rationale, different from his original dismissal letter, for its decision.
Mr Burke also refused to give an undertaking not to trespass on the school if released and will remain in prison.
