Ruling next week on whether Burkes in contempt of court
The High Court will rule next week on whether the mother and a sister of secondary school teacher Enoch Burke should be jailed for contempt of court.
Enoch Burke is still in prison having been jailed before Christmas for continuing to trespass at his former school, despite a court order directing him not to.
Mr Justice Brian Cregan said he had decided to hold a contempt of court hearing in relation to Martina Burke and Ammi Burke due to their conduct at a hearing last Friday.
He said this conduct involved repeated shouting by the two women, repeated refusals to sit down despite warnings at the start of the proceedings and interruptions of an application being made by the barrister representing Wilson's Hospital School.
The hearing last week dealt in part with Enoch Burke’s proceedings against a disciplinary appeals panel convened to hear his appeal against his dismissal from the school.
The DAP held a hearing on 13 December, following which Mr Burke made complaints about the conduct of the hearing and began legal proceedings against the DAP.
He subsequently received a letter from the DAP saying they had decided to reconvene the hearing.
Mr Burke alleges the chair of the panel, Seán Ó Longáin, committed perjury in a sworn document by swearing that the DAP always intended to hold a second hearing, something Mr Burke said was "demonstrably false".
Martina Burke and Ammi Burke were removed from the courtroom by gardaí last Friday.
Mr Justice Cregan said he would hear submissions from each woman about whether their behaviour amounted to contempt of court, interfering with the administration of justice, and whether they had an explanation for it.
Martina Burke told the judge that he had struck out her son’s proceedings against the DAP on Friday and had refused to acknowledge her son’s claim of perjury.
She said he did not deal with it until she and her family drove again to the courts from their home in Mayo earlier this week to hand in an application for the issue to be heard.
She said this was a blot on the administration of justice.
Both Martina and Enoch Burke raised the case of Conor McGregor in which two people who swore affidavits for Mr McGregor’s appeal were accused of perjury.
Martina Burke said: "When it’s Enoch Burke it doesn’t matter if there’s perjury, but in Nikita Hand’s case, people are arrested.
"It’s different strokes for different folks," she said.
She said her son was a "righteous, sincere and excellent" teacher who should not be in jail.
But she said he had been denied his constitutional rights by Judge Cregan and every other judge who had heard the case, which she said was about her son’s opposition to "transgender ideology" and his refusal to call a boy a girl.
Mrs Burke waved the constitution during her submissions and banged the desk on a number of occasions.
There were comments of "Amen", "yes" and "hear hear" from other family members in court.
Questioned by Judge Cregan about why she would not accept that Mr Burke should not be trespassing at the school, Mrs Burke said he had been denied his constitutional rights to his religious beliefs.
She said she had a duty to speak the truth.
"Scripture tells us to speak the truth," she said, "and I will speak the truth".
Ammi Burke, who is a qualified solicitor, told the judge she had spent three and a half years supporting her brother.
She said the judge’s striking out of proceedings against the DAP was an appalling abuse of power.
She described the DAP’s hearing in December as "shambolic".
Enoch Burke began legal proceedings against the DAP after a hearing in December (file photo)
She said it was an "abomination" that the judge had ignored the "serious matter of perjury" raised by her brother.
She said she would not sit silently while her brother was denied his rights or lies were told in court.
She said the judge had defamed and slandered her brother in previous rulings.
Martina Burke told the judge he could still do the right thing and "let Enoch Burke go".
She asked where "transgender rights" were in the Constitution.
She told the judge he was fighting against God and he would never win.
The judge said he would give his ruling on the contempt issue next Wednesday.
He is also due to rule on Mr Burke’s application to have the affidavit of Seán Ó Longáin referred to the DPP for perjury.
Mr Burke said the DAP’s claim that they had always intended to hold a second disciplinary hearing was "demonstrably false".
He said when the hearing ended on the evening of 13 December, Mr Ó Longáin said it was over, and did not say at any point that it would be reconvened.
He said it was the clear understanding of all those present that it had concluded.
Mr Burke said counsel for the school Rosemary Mallon also told the judge in court in December that the hearing was complete and a decision on whether or not Mr Burke’s dismissal would be upheld was expected within ten school days.
Mr Burke said Mr Ó Longáin also swore in his affidavit that there was no connection between Mr Burke’s correspondence outlining his complaints about the conduct of the hearing and the decision to reconvene the panel.
Mr Burke said this was also clearly false, given that the DAP had written to him saying they would reconvene the hearing having considered the matter, including letters he had written to them.
He said this perjury was a very serious matter.
Barrister Hugh McDowell, on behalf of the DAP, said a judge could only refer matters to the DPP after considering all the evidence.
In this case, he said the judge could not make such a referral simply on the basis of Mr Burke’s submissions.
He said the reconvening of the hearing was not that significant an issue in the case.
He said the court should not draw an inference from Mr Ó Longáin’s subsequent resignation from the DAP, along with another member, Jack Cleary.
The judge earlier ruled that he would not measure the costs of the school’s last application to have Mr Burke arrested and committed to prison for trespassing.
The court heard the costs are estimated at almost €32,000.
Judge Cregan said he had sympathy for the school’s position that he should assess the costs rather than sending the matter to the legal costs’ adjudicator, saving time and expense.
But the judge said it was not a simple or straightforward adjudication and he was of the view it would be done more efficiently by the legal costs’ adjudicator.
