Appeal panel agrees to postpone Enoch Burke hearing

By Cillian Sherlock, Press Association

A disciplinary appeals body has temporarily agreed not to take any further steps in reviewing the dismissal of Enoch Burke from Wilson’s Hospital School.

Mr Burke, who is in prison for civil contempt relating to the dispute with the school, sought a temporary injunction against the Disciplinary Appeals Panel (DAP) at the High Court on Thursday.

He has been detained in Mountjoy Prison since late November for breaches of a court order directing him not to trespass at Wilson’s Hospital School in Co Westmeath, where he worked as a teacher.

He has been engaged in a legal dispute with the board of the school stemming from a request in 2022 from the then-principal that a student be addressed by a new name and pronoun.

Since then, Mr Burke has been found to have repeatedly trespassed on school property in breach of court orders.

He has also been engaged in an appeal process with the DAP over his dismissal with the school.

The DAP had been due to reconvene on his case on Saturday.

Mr Burke sought a temporary injunction in relation to the DAP hearing over his “purported dismissal”.

He sought the injunction against the DAP issuing recommendations on his appeal – which had been due to be issued this week – as well as “from taking any further steps” on his appeal.

Padraic Lyons SC, for the DAP, said his clients were, “on an interim basis only”, to provide an undertaking to postpone the resumed hearing and take “no further steps” to progress the appeal.

He asked the court to allow his clients until January 16 to deliver a replying affidavit, and for the matter to be heard on the chancery list on January 21.

Mr Burke said these terms were not acceptable to him “at all” and added that the DAP could have issued a replying affidavit this week.

He said he wanted the matter to be dealt with that day rather than pushed back two weeks.

He said he had been in prison for more than 550 days relating to the dispute and claimed this was a “scandal”.

Mr Burke said he had only been told of the DAP’s position that day, after members of his family had travelled three hours to come to court.

His mother Martina said it was “disgraceful”.

Ms Justice Emily Farrell said the DAP had given an undertaking that the hearing would not proceed and they were “asking for a little further time” for the affidavit.

He said there was no prejudice to him and he had the benefit of the protection he was asking the court for.

Mr Burke said it was “scandalous” and accused the DAP of kicking the matter “down the road for two weeks” because of its “negligence”.

Mr Lyons said the postponement was due to the litigation Mr Burke had pursued.

He added that the members of the DAP were not on the body on a full-time professional basis and that they had other responsibilities to discharge, adding it would not be possible to deliver a replying affidavit in the timeframe sought by Mr Burke.

Mr Burke said the delay was “very unfair” and “extremely prejudicial”, adding that the DAP did not need two weeks for an affidavit.

The judge repeatedly asked Mr Burke not to “shout over” her and also asked members of his family not to interrupt proceedings.

Ms Justice Farrell said she was going to adjourn the matter to enable the respondents to file an affidavit.

She said this was necessary in the interests of justice and that she was mindful that the DAP had given an undertaking not to take any further steps.

She said she was not satisfied there was any prejudice to Mr Burke in this decision, adding that his imprisonment was not directly related to the disciplinary proceedings although it was “obviously for allied reasons”.

Mr Burke said: “Not as I see it.”

He added that he would not be in prison “if things were done right”.

The matter is due back before the High Court on January 21st.