C: Gript

Enoch Burke refuses court’s conditions to gaining injunction against school

School teacher Enoch Burke has refused to abide by conditions placed by High Court Judge Conor Dignam regarding the possibility of him attaining the injunction he sought to stop his employer, Wilson’s Hospital School, from holding a disciplinary procedure meeting in regards to his alleged conduct, and from terminating his contract. 

Yesterday, Burke had been offered the injunction he sought with the presiding judge saying he had met the test for it to be granted as he had a strong case.

Conditions were placed for the granting of the injunction whereby Burke would in turn be required to make an undertaking to abide by the High Court injunction compelling him to stop attending at the school while suspended. 

Burke, again advised by his sister Ammi and brother Simeon,  refused the terms saying the judge had ‘made it conditional’ that he recognize something that is ‘wrong and unconstitutional’. 

He said he was suspended because he refused the school principal, Niamh McShane’s,  demands regarding transgenderism and for expressing his religious faith, he continued that when the school sought the injunction they had ‘made it clear what it was about’. 

Burke stated that ​​he had come before judge Dignam last week ‘to get an injunction and that the court had sat for five hours to hear that application over two days’ he added, ‘yesterday I received your 38 page judgement – 113 paragraphs deliberating on the serious questions of law that are raised” he continued that at the end judge Judge Dignam made ‘the whole outcome of the matter, having established I deserve it – all depending on me accepting an abomination’.

‘These judges had a job to do’ and that ‘they’re getting well remunerated to do it – in and out – stamp on a page dotting the line’, he said. 

Burke harkened back to the decision of judge Barrett given on the 7th of September to grant the injunction preventing him from attending Wilson’s Hospital School saying that it had been made ‘in less time than it takes to order a chicken fillet roll from SPAR’.

He continued that it was “an outright lie” that this case wasn’t ‘an attack on religious belief and that it’s not about transgenderism’. 

Asked by Justice Dignam to clarify if his comments meant that he was refusing to abide by the terms deemed necessary to grant him his injunction Burke replied that he had won his case and his injunction’. 

Referring to the disciplinary procedure hearing scheduled to be held tomorrow, he said,   ‘you are forcing me to attend a board meeting tomorrow at 10am chaired by a man who has lied under oath’. He added, ‘I have won but justice is being withheld from me because I won’t agree that this case is not about transgenderism’.

 He said he was unable to accept that as it ‘defies all logic’ and that accepting that is ‘something I can’t do”. 

Counsel for the school, Rosemary Mallon BL, said that Burke has answered the question posed by the judge and made it clear that he did not intend to abide by the orders of the court in future, and that he knew ‘what the result will be’.

Justice Dignam said that he was ‘not going to engage with the comments made’ and that his ‘judgement had been given’. 

He added that he had given Burke time to consider the conditions attached to the granting of the injunction sought by him saying “​​I take it that you don’t intend to comply with orders – if I am correct, I intend to reject the injunction”. he said. 

Burke asked the court to clarify whether principal Niamh McShane would be present at the disciplinary meeting tomorrow to which Mallon replied that ‘it was intended’ that she would be in present. 

He continued that he had ‘concerns’ about the manner in which the judge dealt with his case saying again that he felt he had ‘won the application’ and that judge Dugnam had ‘ruled in his favour’. 

Justice Dignam replied, ‘I want to make it clear you didn’t succeed’ adding, ‘you succeeded on one limb’. 

He continued, “It is incorrect to say you have succeeded”. 

While Burke has the option of appealing the decision, the matter of costs which are being sought by both Burke and Wilson’s Hospital School is to be dealt with at a later date yet unspecified. 

Judge Dignam said that the matter relating to costs was “not straightforward” giving the parties leave to make submissions in that regard. 

 

Share mdi-share-variant mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-printer mdi-chevron-left Prev Next mdi-chevron-right Related
Comments are closed

Do you favour HAVING a referendum to insert a right to housing into the constitution?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...