Enoch Burke fails in effort to temporarily halt disciplinary hearing

Ann O'Loughlin

School teacher Enoch Burke has failed to stop a hearing into his dismissal from going ahead.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) has refused to grant Mr Burke a stay of the hearing of his appeal against his dismissal from Wilson’s Hospital School going ahead on Saturday.

Mr Burke, who is currently incarcerated over his contempt of court orders, on Friday appeared before a three-judge CoA panel to move his application seeking to temporarily halt the Disciplinary Appeals Panel hearing in Athlone.

Mr Justice Mary Faherty, Mr Justice Donald Binchy and Ms Justice Nuala Butler refused Mr Burke’s application, stating that they were satisfied that he would suffer no prejudice from the hearing going ahead.

Mr Burke sought a stay in circumstances where he wants to appeal to the Supreme Court over two separate CoA judgments that he says make “opposed” findings of fact relating to the basis of the Co Westmeath school’s disciplinary action against him.

He said the disciplinary panel hearing going ahead would cause him irreparable harm.

Mr Burke was a teacher at the school until his suspension three years ago, arising from his behaviour in reaction to a direction from the then-principal to address a transitioning student with they/them pronouns. He was later dismissed.

Restraining order

Soon after Mr Burke’s suspension, the school obtained an order restraining his attendance at the school premises.

Mr Burke has continually breached this order, resulting in his spending over 500 days in jail for contempt of court.

Mr Burke has claimed his jailing is over his standing up for his Christian beliefs under the Constitution, and his opposition to what he calls “transgenderism”.

On Friday, Mr Burke said that a CoA judgment delivered by Ms Justice Faherty in July 2025 made errors by refusing to acknowledge that it departed from findings of fact in an earlier CoA judgment delivered by Mr Justice John Edwards.

Appeal refused

Refusing Mr Burke’s appeal to the granting of an interim injunction restraining his attendance at Wilson’s Hospital School, Mr Justice Edwards in March 2023 wrote that there was no evidence Mr Burke was suspended because of his views, or his objection to the school’s “inclusive policy”.

This statement is “diametrically opposed” to the CoA’s observation in Ms Justice Faherty’s judgment, Mr Burke said, which stated that the principal’s instruction relating to the pupil’s pronouns was a “kernel” of the case.

Ms Justice Faherty’s judgment related to Mr Burke’s successful appeal over the composition of a previous disciplinary panel set up to hear his appeal against his dismissal.

Even though the judgments came to opposing conclusions on the issue, Mr Burke submitted, Ms Justice Faherty’s judgment refused to acknowledge that Mr Justice Edwards was in error.

Board management

Wilson’s Hospital School’s board of management are “forcibly relying” on Mr Justice Edwards’ judgment in the pending disciplinary hearing, Mr Burke submitted. He claimed that the judgment was ringing with “authority” and “absolutism” when it addressed the basis of the disciplinary action, and will be “ringing in the ears” of the disciplinary panel.

He said that the existence of two judgments with opposing findings of fact has prejudicial consequences for the proper administration for the disciplinary panel.

In those circumstances, he said was seeking a stay pending the outcome of his Supreme Court appeal relating to the perceived opposition between the two judgments.

Padraic Lyons SC, appearing for the Disciplinary Appeals Panel with barrister Hugh McDowell, opposed the application. Mr Lyons said there was no reason why the “perceived tension” between the remarks in the judgments should mean that Mr Burke will not get a fair trial before the panel.

Ruling

Delivering the court’s ruling, Ms Justice Faherty said they were satisfied that Mr Burke would suffer no prejudice from the hearing going ahead.

The judge said the court was satisfied that nothing has been determined by either CoA judgment that falls to be determined by the Disciplinary Appeals Panel.

She noted Mr Justice Binchy’s suggestion that it would be helpful if it were acknowledged that no finding of fact can arise from judgment in applications for interlocutory relief, and that the panel should not rely on either CoA judgment in its decision.

The judge said it was helpful that counsel for the panel said that this was a point well made and that the suggestion could be conveyed to the panel.

The court made an order for costs against Mr Burke.