High Court: Enoch Burke re-committed to prison following his release on 14 January 2026
The High Court on Tuesday returned Enoch Burke to prison after his release in January 2026, which had been granted to allow him an opportunity to prepare for his case against a Disciplinary Appeal Panel. Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Brian Cregan reiterated: “Mr Burke has been imprisoned for contempt of court — not for his religious beliefs. As I have always said, Mr Burke is free to proclaim his objections to transgenderism from the rooftops. He can claim how opposed he is to all sorts of transgender issues — outside the school grounds. But he is not allowed to trespass and he is not allowed to breach court orders. The laws of this country apply to him just as they apply to everyone else.” Background A Disciplinary Appeal Panel met on 13 December 2025 to hear the defendant’s appeal against his dismissal for gross misconduct from his teaching position at the plaintiff school. A decision was expected to be delivered on 9 January 2026. On 6 January 2026, the defendant belatedly issued new proceedings against the panel and brought an ex parte application for an injunction to restrain the DAP from continuing. The matter was subsequently transferred into the High Court Chancery list. Mr Justice Cregan, having read the papers, took the view that if the hearing before the DAP had taken place in the manner set out in the defendant’s affidavit, then he had raised substantive and serious issues in relation to the hearing and he would almost certainly need to file a reply to the affidavits filed by the DAP and to prepare legal submissions. Mr Justice Cregan considered that in circumstances where the defendant was a litigant in person with a demonstrable lack of knowledge of the law, he would be at a significant disadvantage if he were trying to prepare his case from his prison cell, notwithstanding the defendant’s contention that “a child could prepare it”. Accordingly, when the matter came before the High Court on 14 January 2026, Mr Justice Cregan ordered the defendant’s release from prison to allow him to prepare his case. The judge did not require the defendant to purge his contempt of court before his release, as he was of the view that such a course would be unlikely. However, the court warned the defendant that should he trespass upon the plaintiff school’s property, he would be re-committed to prison for contempt of court. Notwithstanding the court’s warning, the defendant proceeded to trespass on school property again. The High Court Mr Justice Cregan noted that the court’s central role, pursuant to the Constitution, is the administration of justice and that the decision to release the defendant to allow him an opportunity to prepare his case was a fair and reasonable decision. The judge remarked: “If Mr Burke had been legally represented last week, his lawyer (assuming, of course, it wasn’t a member of his family but an objective, experienced counsel) would have understood exactly what my decision was, and would have advised Mr Burke to focus on the essential elements in this case (i.e. fighting the DAP) and to ignore the performative nonsense of trespassing on school property.” The court explained that while most people would have accepted their release from prison on the terms imposed by the court, the defendant’s immediate reaction was hostile and he indicated that he would return to the plaintiff school the next day. Recounting the court’s surprise arising from this “abnormal reaction”, Mr Justice Cregan expressed his belief that having reflected upon the situation overnight, the defendant might have seen the advantages to him of the court’s decision. Rejecting the defendant’s contention that when he was released on 14 January 2026, the court knew that he would turn up at the school, Mr Justice Cregan observed that following his first judgment on 18 November 2025, the defendant made videos outside the school but for an entire week did not trespass on school property. The judge continued: “I had thought therefore that there might be grounds to believe that he had learned his lesson, and that he could say what he wanted outside the school grounds. Unfortunately, that has proved not to be the case.” The court also denied committing a “U Turn” in releasing him, highlighting that the court had set out its reasons clearly and succinctly. In this regard, the court noted: “Now that he is going back to prison, he will realise that there was no ‘U Turn’ — only another opportunity missed by Mr Burke.” Mr Justice Cregan was “mystified” by the defendant’s argument that the court had set a trap for him, opining: “Mr Burke speaks as though he has no free will and that it was somehow predetermined that he would be turning up at the school the following day. But Mr Burke always had a choice… Most rational and reasonable people would have chosen to stay home and work on their case. However, he decided to go out of his way to go back to the school, where he is not wanted, and to breach the court order again.” The court further observed that the defendant’s statements after his release contained another “avalanche of lies” in that he contended that he had been imprisoned for life, noting: “It is of course impossible to imprison someone for life when they have the keys to their own prison as Mr Burke does.” Mr Justice Cregan took the view that the defendant was increasingly losing sight of the truth, that his “numerous wild allegations” against the court were all part of a pattern, and that the defendant was waging war on the school, the DAP, the courts, the judiciary and anybody disagreeing with his version of events. Noting that the defendant was in flagrant contempt of court with no defence, the court explained that the defendant had failed to take the opportunity to prepare for his case at home rather than in prison, “another misjudgement by Mr Burke in a case littered with his misjudgements”. Conclusion Accordingly, the High Court determined that the defendant should be re-committed to prison. The Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School v Enoch Burke [2026] IEHC 31
Comments (0)