Enoch Burke turns up to school again despite sacking - read OP before posting

Babyreignbow

Been trying to figure out what to dress up as for halloween.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122560159#Comment_122560159

Will you stop, you know full well he has continuously entered the schools property including this week.

The School is private property.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561018#Comment_122561018

I have referred to that already in previous posts. Most of his time has been spent standing at the gates though, hence my question, can he be charged with criminal trespass for standing in a public area like a road or footpath.

It helps when you read the bloody post you are replying to.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561018#Comment_122561018

Yeah, but simply being on someone else's private property is not a crime.

We've been through this before in this thread. Obviously if Burke does commit a trespass offence, prosecuting him for tha offence is one of the options open to the State, but it's not clear that he has committed any trespass offence — or, at any rate, that he committing any now.

Besides, the likely penalty wouldn't act as a deterrent, given that he is evidently willing to spend far longer in custody that any prison sentence a trespass offence might attract. So, even if a trespass offence could be proven, I'm not sure that proseucting it would do much to solve the real problem here.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561083#Comment_122561083

Yeah, but simply being on someone else's private property is not a crime.

No one suggested it was.

Read the legislation.

Henry Ford III

He's making a fool out of the system, and is costing the public a lot of money too.

Time to change things.

1/. Sack him and stop paying him.

2/. Collect the outstanding fines. Bankrupt him if needs be.

He'll disappear if that happens I reckon.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561081#Comment_122561081

It helps when you read the bloody post you are replying to.

Your question is moot, he continuously enters the schools property and continues to do so, including this week.

Stick with the facts.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561101#Comment_122561101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561090#Comment_122561090

FFS, will you ar least make some effort to read the thread before you post more rubbish. Another poster has posted in their view, IT SHOULD BE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE rather than WH having to keep going to get injunctions preventing him from standing outside/at the school gate., that is what I was replying to.

Jesus wept.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561106#Comment_122561106

Which you replied 'is it a criminal offence to stand in a public footpath' -sic.

You know full well that isn't what the OP was referring to.

You are being disingenuous and continue to be.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561097#Comment_122561097

He has been sacked, and is appealing his dismissal.

He has employment/contractual rights which it would seem prevents WH/Dept of Education from stopping his wage. If they stop his wages, he would be entitled to go to the WRC, just like any other employee.

How does bankrupting him change things?

Henry Ford III

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561133#Comment_122561133

If somebody is sacked why are they still being paid? It's a nonsense.

Maybe just hear the appeal and uphold the decision.

Why aren't the fines he's clocked up being collected?

Hit him hard in the pocket and he might rethink his "religious beliefs".

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561130#Comment_122561130

You really are struggling to follow the thread.

Even if EB hadn’t entered the school this week, the fact that he showed up at the gates would have led to WH reapplying to the Courts. The poster said WH should not have to keep doing that, and that it should be a criminal offence, which led me to ask, could it be a criminal offence to stand on a road/path, like he does most of the time?

I’m not being disingenuous, you just aren’t able to follow the thread.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561133#Comment_122561133

He is entitled to go to the WRC regardless.

Which is exactly where he will be heading next I imagine.

Although the last time the Burkes showed up at the WRC it was first time in history someone nearly got themselves arrested at this particular arena.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561154#Comment_122561154

Even if EB hadn’t entered the school this week

If? Again lets deal in reality. He did enter the school, the discussion was not whether he violated the injunction, it was criminal trespass.

Keep up.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561152#Comment_122561152

Maybe just hear the appeal and uphold the decision

Minister Foley hinted in Feb that he had some sort of injunction against the appeal.

That will need to be dealt with first before the appeal can go ahead.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561174#Comment_122561174

Why was this particular trespass criminal? Be specific as to the offence committed, and the actions of Burke which represent the elements of the offence.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561225#Comment_122561225

Counsel said that since last Thursday, August 22, the school's board has become most anxious after Mr Burke started attending at the school, in breach of the terms of the injunction which prevents him from trespassing at the facility.

The school was particularly concerned over an alleged incident where it is claimed that Mr Burke entered into a room in the school's main building where teachers were holding a staff meeting in respect of the school's Transition Year class. The school is concerned as it is "difficult to monitor" Mr Burke when he was on the campus, counsel said.

Counsel said that another concern was that other third parties have also started attending outside the school in relation to the ongoing situation with Mr Burke.

The matter came before Mr Justice Barry O'Donnell, who on an ex parte basis granted the school permission to serve short notice of the attachment and committal proceedings on Mr Burke. The matter will return before the court on Friday.

It's criminal trespass 101.

Again, strange that we need to remind ourselves of this. But this is a literal school containing literal children.

Child Safety Policy does not seem to apply in Westmeath.

Someone needs to answer why?

Peregrinus

Let's try again:

Which trespass offence has been committed?

You've been urging others read the legislation, so I'll do you the courtesy of assuming that you've read it yourself, so you'll be able to say which section of the relevant Act has been infringed; which offence has been committed.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561276#Comment_122561276

What part are you struggling with?

I have asked you to read the legislation. I know the legislation.

So maybe it would help if you articulate why you think it isn't criminal trespass?

Again, this is what the school are telling a high court judge. They are "most anxious" and "concerned" about his presence.

Counsel said that since last Thursday, August 22, the school's board has become most anxious after Mr Burke started attending at the school, in breach of the terms of the injunction which prevents him from trespassing at the facility.

The school was particularly concerned over an alleged incident where it is claimed that Mr Burke entered into a room in the school's main building where teachers were holding a staff meeting in respect of the school's Transition Year class. The school is concerned as it is "difficult to monitor" Mr Burke when he was on the campus, counsel said.

Counsel said that another concern was that other third parties have also started attending outside the school in relation to the ongoing situation with Mr Burke.

The matter came before Mr Justice Barry O'Donnell, who on an ex parte basis granted the school permission to serve short notice of the attachment and committal proceedings on Mr Burke. The matter will return before the court on Friday.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561388#Comment_122561388

We are all struggling to understand why you keep referring to an offence, but you can’t quote the legislation/offence you know about, Either post it, or stop dragging the thread down with unsubstantiated rubbish.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561415#Comment_122561415

I posted it several times already but Here you go. Now as well if could articulate why you think his actions are not Criminal Trespass.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/13/enacted/en/html

Peregrinus

You keep asserting that this is "criminal trespass", while refusing to specify the offence that is being committed or the legislation that is being contravened, or indeed the legislation that you think others should read.

Are you talking about trespass on a bulding contrary to Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 s. 13? And, if so, why are you so reluctant to say so? And, if not, what are you talking about?

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561443#Comment_122561443

You know exactly what legislation I am referencing, link above.

Now if you could answer my question.

So maybe it would help if you articulate why you think it isn't criminal trespass?

bennyx_o

Don't WHS have a restraining order that requires Enoch to stay away from the school? He lost his appeal to have it overturned so I assume it's still in force. Is him standing at the gate a breach of this? (assume it's all down to the wording of the order)

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561548#Comment_122561548

He only stands outside the school because the school actively monitors him and try and keep him out.

At every opportunity he tries to and is sometimes successful at entering the school grounds and buildings themselves.

He has been roaming around the school buildings this week, with children in the school.

In non bizarro world when there is a breach of child safety such as this the Guards would bounce the perp off every solid object into a Paddy Wagon.

But in West Meath a literal school has to spend a fortune on Barristers in the high court to safe guard the children they are legally responsible for.

It's a head scratcher.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122559630#Comment_122559630

The point is that under normal circumstances a short stay in Prison is sufficient for the person to "cop on" and purge their contempt and allow proceedings to move forward.

Enoch however appears willing to stay in Prison indefinitely and as others have pointed out , being jailed for contempt is specifically not meant to be "punitive" so he would probably have a solid case in the Supreme court to say "I'm never going to purge this contempt, but you can't keep me in jail forever as that would be punitive".

Hence the need for a specific offence that can be used in cases of total refusal to engage with the courts - A fixed term sentence by its nature is not punitive , even if in reality he just keeps getting sent back to Prison every 3/6 months when he again refuses to comply with the court order on his release.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561548#Comment_122561548

Yes, the school did get a restraining order requiring Enoch to stay away from the school BUT after he disobeyed the order and declined to tell the High Court that he would obey the restraining order, he was locked away in the Joy for a while, and then released without clearing his contempt while the school was on holiday, the order temporarily lapsed [as it were] and its effectiveness needs/needed re-affirmation of its legal effect at a new court sitting [today] after his return to the school.

All sides knew there would be no point in him standing outside the locked gates of a school closed for the holidays so the judge felt there was no point in subsidizing Enoch with free board and lodging in the Joy at our expense during the holidays.

According to the terms of the original High Court order against Enoch not to attend at the school, yes, his standing at the school gate again would be in direct breach of the court order the same way it was before, for which he was committed to prison when he made it clear to the judge that he was NOT going to comply with or obey the court order not to attend at the school. Todays court ruling will be what counts now. Hopefully it means more trips to the Joy for his family on weekly visits and lawyers visits. This will mean they cannot be up to other "religious" belief activities around the country.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561606#Comment_122561606

there is a breach of child safety

But where is the breach of child safety?

Is he harassing children?

There is no indication that Burke was ever an is ever a danger to children.

On the contrary it's been said that he was a popular teacher, and the education service the Burke family run in Mayo is supposed to be very popular.

I think people here are frustrated with Burke and his antics and are willing to throw in anything in a post just to make him look even worse.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122561472#Comment_122561472

I haven't said that it isn't. But I can see a couple of issues that the prosecution would need to address.

First, the question of whether the fact that Burke has an employment dispute with the school amounts to a "reasonable excuse" for his trespass on the premises. He's turnign up at the school, remember, because he claims to be employed there. In his view the school has locked him out. This is a bit of minefield because, of course, a finding one way or the other has implications for trade disputes and pickets generally.

Secondly, the requirement that the manner of Burke's trespass "causes or is likely to cause fear in another person". Fear of what? The Act doesn't say, which is notable, because in other provisions it does say. So there's a vagueness or ambiguity here which, because this is a criminal provision, is going to be construed in favour of the defendant. The report you quote only says that the school is "concerned" because it is "difficult to monitor" Burke; no court is going to find that concerns about monitoring are a "fear" of the kind mentioned in s. 13. And, if anybody else has been put in something more like fear, the report you link to doesn't mention it.

So, I can see problems in the way of a successful prosecution.

But, breach of the injumction? They've got him cold on that. Plus, proceedings for breaching the injunction will be a lot quicker than a prosecution for s. 13 trespass, and the sanction will be a lot heavier. So, if if there were a cast-iron case for s.13 trespass — and, on what we've got so far, there isn't — I can see why everyone, even the school, might want to pursue the contempt route instead. Even if he were to be convicted, in terms of what the school wants, and what the authorities want. that acheives nothing.

Ezeoul

I guess we won't hear anything from the Courts before this afternoon.

I'm torn. I think he deserves to go back to Mountjoy, but I want the DAP to proceed and for his dismissal to be finalised.

I think until that happens, it is going to just keep going around in circles.

Like I said in a previous post, Ireland needs to legislate for civil restraining orders that the Gardai can enforce.