C: GRIPT

Enoch Burke says he will not allow legal precedent for dismissing teachers

Enoch Burke appeared before the High Court this morning to pursue an application to prevent his employer, Wilson’s Hospital School, from going ahead with a disciplinary hearing against him scheduled for the 19th of January.

Enoch Burke has told the High Court that he will continue to not comply with the courts’ orders as doing so would establish a legal precedent.

Burke confirmed to the judge that he was still in breach of the court order compelling him not to attend at the school which was granted in September last year, leading to his imprisonment. 

Wilson’s Hospital school is seeking a motion for the temporary seizure of Burke’s assets as the teacher has given no indication that he intended to abide by the terms of the order. 

The affidavit relevant to the motion by the Wilson’s Hospital School ran into technical difficulties after the chairperson of the school failed to attach adequate identification to the documents. 

Counsel for the school requested that the motion be deferred to allow for the amendment of the relevant documents, resulting in the motion being set for hearing next Tuesday. 

When asked by the sitting judge how much time he would need to answer the motion, Burke, advised by his brother,replied that he was ready to go ahead. 

After recusing himself from the hearing of the case in relation to Burke’s motion,  stating that he was unable to read through the papers due to a conflict of time, the judge questioned Burke on his resolve to seek an injunction against the school when he himself is currently in breach of a court order, commenting that he was surprised that Burke was seeking remedy from the  courts when in contempt of their orders. 

He added that this was a “matter of some consequence”. 

Burke challenged the judge by expressing his surprise that he would “wade into” the matter after assigning it to be dealt with by a different judge. 

Burke further argued that it was ‘absolutely not the case’ that someone in contempt of a court order should have the fact held against them in pursuit of a legal remedy and reiterated that because of his Christian beliefs he would never consent to calling a boy a girl or a girl a boy.  

He said that the matters before the court in relation to his suspension and imprisonment were “unlawful and unconstitutional”. 

The judge replied that “once again” Burke was misunderstanding the the matter, and that those seeking an equitable order from the courts should act in accordance with the adage, “He who wishes to seek equity must do equity”. 

The matter of Burke’s injunction was referred to Judge Conor Dignam with the hearing commencing today. The matter was adjourned until tomorrow.

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 ...