“I won’t back down.” Tom Petty’s well-known song used in several political campaigns over the years, would be a fitting backtrack to the lengthy legal saga surrounding Enoch Burke.
Since the onset of the litigation between Wilson’s Hospital School and Burke more than 3½ years ago, the dispute has been subject of multiple court listings, more than 60 court orders, and at least 25 judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal.
As the new year looms, there is no end in sight with Burke remaining in prison, apparently intent on pursuing his mission to be reinstated to his teaching post at the school.
When appearing in court last month via video link from Mountjoy prison, Burke said everything went back to what happened in the High Court in August 2022, when the initial injunction requiring him to stay away from the school was granted, and that would have to be addressed.
READ MORE
Despite four periods of imprisonment amounting to about 550 days, and fines exceeding €220,000, he made clear he was prepared for the long haul.
“We could wish with all our hearts that this was going away,” he said, but that was “not going to happen”.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice,” Burke said, quoting Martin Luther King jnr, the US civil rights leader, from an address in 1968.
King was paraphrasing words of an abolitionist Unitarian minister, Theodore Parker, from 1853 when predicting the inevitable success of the anti-slavery movement.
Parker said: “I do not pretend to understand the moral universe. The arc is a long one. My eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by experience of sight. I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see, I am sure it bends towards justice.”
Burke’s perception of the “moral universe” is at the heart of the chasm between him and the school.
He insists the litigation is rooted in his opposition to “transgenderism” after he complained about a request from the then school principal in May 2022 to refer to a particular pupil by their preferred new name and as “they” or “them”.
The school’s position is that a disciplinary process and the litigation was triggered by his conduct towards the principal when both were attending a school religious service in June 2022, resulting in his suspension from his post. His continued attendance at the school after his suspension led to the school’s application for court orders to stay away from it, orders Burke has persistently breached.
The judges who have dealt with the case have repeatedly said it has nothing to do with Burke’s religious beliefs and everything to do with the obligation to comply with court orders.
The next episode in the dispute is expected to be a decision by a Disciplinary Appeals Panel on Burke’s appeal, heard on December 13th, against his dismissal from the school.
That decision must be provided by January 9th to the school board of management which will then decide what action to take. If Burke is unhappy with the school board’s proposal, that could mean further litigation.
Burke, who continues to be paid by the Department of Education pending the outcome of the appeal, lost an application for a stay on it.
[ Claims that Enoch Burke is jailed for his beliefs are ‘lies’, judge rulesOpens in new window ]
He sought the stay earlier in December pending a decision by the Supreme Court on whether to hear an appeal by him over alleged contradictions in Court of Appeal judgments on aspects of the case. A panel of Supreme Court judges will decide over the coming months whether his application meets the criteria for an appeal to the top court – that the matter involves a point of law of exceptional public importance or an appeal is in the interests of justice.
Because of the potential implications of the disciplinary appeal outcome for Burke’s continued imprisonment, the High Court will review the matter on January 14th.
Separately, Burke faces a hearing in February before a legal costs adjudicator concerning bills of costs advanced by the school for some of the proceedings. The full costs incurred by the school arising from the dispute are unknown, but it appears to have paid more than €600,000 to its lawyers to date and wants to recover costs against him.
Accounts for Wilson Hospital School Co Ltd filed during 2025 showed its insurance bill more than doubled from €65,230 in 2023 to €138,966 last year. Its legal and professional costs rose from €47,422 to €310,651 over the same period.
The impasse between the school and Burke continues to expose the limitations of the courts when confronted with a determined and disruptive contemnor apparently indifferent to the serious consequences of their contempt for their liberty and finances.
Mr Justice Brian Cregan, the latest in a long line of High Court judges to deal with the litigation, asked the Attorney General last month to consider criminal contempt proceedings against Burke and three members of his family, his mother Martina, sister Ammi and brother Isaac, over their conduct in court.
The main distinction between civil and criminal contempt is that, when a court decides on imprisonment for civil contempt, the contemnor may be detained indefinitely until they purge their contempt. When jailed for criminal contempt, a specific term must be imposed.
When the Attorney, Rossa Fanning, told the judge on December 17th he believed there would be no practical benefit in bringing criminal contempt proceedings against Burke, already jailed for civil contempt, he was reflecting the views of many lawyers.
Mr Fanning said, despite his “grave concerns” about the behaviour of the other three family members, he had also decided against taking, “at this time”, criminal contempt proceedings against them. There is an issue whether the line between unruly behaviour “borne out of heightened emotion” on one hand and criminal contempt on the other had been crossed, he said.
Alternative remedies included that a judge could direct a disruptive person to be removed from a courtroom, he said. Any person who refused to comply could be prosecuted.
Criminal contempt proceedings would increase the already “disproportionate” court time taken up by litigation involving the Burkes and mean significant costs for the taxpayer, Mr Fanning said.
[ Enoch Burke will remain in jail for Christmas, judge saysOpens in new window ]
Successful criminal contempt proceedings, he added, would involve fines or prison terms which “may reinforce an unfounded sense of martyrdom” and were “unlikely to provoke any Damascene conversion”.
Mr Justice Cregan’s initial reaction to the Attorney’s decision was “disappointment and surprise”. He said he believed transcripts did not accurately reflect the tone and tenor of what went on in the Burke cases and he would decide later whether to initiate criminal contempt proceedings himself, meaning sending the matter to a different judge.
There have been frequent calls for reform of the law on contempt here, particularly to put contempt of court on a statutory footing.
A widespread view among lawyers is that such reform would have little effect on the particular impasse between Burke and the school. Whether another solution can be found remains to be seen. For now, Burke’s position can be summed up in two lines from Petty’s song: “Gonna stand my ground. I won’t back down.”
