Westmeath school gets temporary injunction banning a suspended teacher from it's premises

Enoch looking to legally challenge the disciplinary process

Update this Monday evening 12 Sept.

I can’t summarize it all; essentially Mr Burke’s account of school service is very different, he’s claiming disciplinary process is flawed on constitutional grounds. He does claim a CoI document from 2002 (superseded by now anyone?) is in his favour. Best to read the article.

yeah he's throwing a lot at it, obviously hoping something will stick

As for the 2002 reference, I saw that and expect it to play zero part.

A quick summary of his counterclaim. Info sourced from the RTE article below as well as the IE & IT articles above. Note, there are 3 injunctions he is seeking

1. Stop the disciplinary hearing
2. Prevent the school from putting him on administrative leave (quash the original decision I'm guessing)
3. Prevent the school from continuing to keep him on administrative leave.

• Enoch wants his own injunction to stop the school from going ahead with the disciplinary process "against him over an alleged breach of his rights to freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief."

The disciplinary process is due to his actions, not his beliefs

• He wants the injunction "pending the hearing of his case that the process is unconstitutional."

Disciplinary procedures are not unconstitutional (JFC that I had to type that lol)

• He didn't like a report about his behavior is "in breach of natural justice and fair procedures, Mr Burke claims. The report, he alleges, is “replete” with findings of fact and conclusions which are “highly prejudicial” to him and also contains "false allegations" and "significant omissions".

Honestly, I'm gobsmacked that he didn't like a report that outlined his behaviour, gobsmacked I tells ya

• The decision to suspend him with pay is “unreasonable, unjust, unfair and unlawful” and the process itself breaches the relevant Department of Education circular, he claims.

Not sure if he's arguing here that he shouldn't be paid while suspended. Anything is possible in this farce

• Seems to believe something the school said in 2002 trumps Equal Status legislation

The school countered with

• As Enoch is refusing the walk out of jail, they've postponed the disciplinary hearing until he's available to attend in person. They will tell him a date once he walks out of the jail.

Makes sense, can't have a hearing if the person its about is hiding in jail to avoid it

• The schools lawyer said Enoch is looking to appeal the injunction from last week. Enoch said he's not, he wants to stop the disciplinary process that is stopped until he comes out of jail

Errrrrr

Anyway, the first injunction, to prevent the disciplinary hearing, is rejected as the hearing is already on hold until Enoch comes out of the joy.

There are still 2 other's he is seeking

preventing him from being put on administrative leave or continuing to be on administrative leave.

Some more background info

• Aug 2018- Hired
• He's a brilliant teacher if he may say so himself
• May 9th - The staff got an email about the student and their request as regards names
• May 10 - He told the principal he didn't like it
• May 10 - At a staff meeting, in case she didn't hear him, he told her again

Important to note, he said he was concerned about the welfare of the children so couldn't follow this instruction which would damage the welfare of the children by, umm, doing something which would positively impact the welfare of the children.....its all rather confusing

• A few days later (insert spongebob transition screen here) he met with the Principal and Vice Principal
• May 27 - Principal sends him an email highlighting its obligations under Equal Status Act and "expected he will communicate with the relevant student in accordance with the wishes of that student and their parents"
• June 21 - He gets up at a school service and proceeds to give a speech about.....well you know yourself at this stage
• June 21 - Later that evening he challenged the Principal again. He did it so much other people had to stop eating their dinner and intervene to physically prevent his challenges.

Maybe he thought she wasn't at the service so he should repeat himself, repeatedly

• Aug 15 - Principal sends him and board a report which outlined the sequence of events. In it she stated "she had invoked stage 4 of the disciplinary process because, in her opinion, Mr Burke’s behaviour, as alleged, “may amount to gross misconduct”. It was not acceptable, the report said, for a teacher to challenge school policy in such a public place and his public statement regarding his non-acceptance of transgenderism was not in keeping with the ethos of the school or the expected standards of teachers. The report stated Ms McShane had serious concerns about how Mr Burke may act in the school in future in circumstances where he has stated his personal views on transgenderism in school and at a public event after the school term had ended.

Enoch didn't like that, and I'm paraphrasing here, but something along the lines of "I am a very fine person, lots of people tell me this, so many people, many fine people".

• Aug 22 - At a school board meeting, where he was being suspended pending a disciplinary review to take place 3 weeks later, he didn't want to be suspended saying that was an “extremely serious” step that would put a significant blemish on his professional record, good name and character. 

Given the worldwide attention he's drawn upon himself, his own actions seem to have taken care of his good name and character. Whats the bar for "blemish"? Does breaching an injunction qualify?

• Aug 24 - Suspension confirmed by letter from the board as they were concerned that he had offered no assurance that, pending the disciplinary hearing, he would “refrain from misconducting yourself in the school in a manner similar to that alleged by the principal”.

The rest ye should be well aware of (going to the school, being asked not to, going back, being asked not to, court injunction, breach, breach, breach, jail etc)

Nope, her departure from the Wilson school had been announced back in June as she was moving to a school in Bandon

I don't see how seeing as it couldn't go ahead with him present.

Did you also miss the fact that Enoch was trying to get an injunction to stop the hearing? A request that was rejected as the hearing is postponed because Enoch is refusing to walk out of the joy

oh you're back and predicting more stunning victories for enoch if mysterious unlikely occurrences .... occur

In a word, nope.

He'll want to make it all about religion but its not, for anyone, except him.

To everyone else its about his behavior and his actions.

His reasons as to why he behaved or acted the way he did do not excuse said actions or behaviour.

Also, you seem to be saying he is being discriminated against because he's not being allowed to discriminate against a student, am I reading that right?

Is it the taxpayer or the Board of Wilson's Hospital that will end up paying the costs of Eunuch's latest publicity stunt?

His stay in the joy also has a cost to the state / us!!!!

Reminded of all the people who thought that anti lockdown court cases were gonna be won....

The suspension was for him publicly confronting and haranguing the principal in a public setting. At no point does that become okay and it's pretty telling that the courts aren't taking him particularly seriously. Hope he enjoys his stay in Mountjoy for however long he chooses.

The media reports I can access are quite short but they seem to be saying that Mr Burke’s focus on the suspension is arguing that :

“As part of his challenge, Mr Burke is seeking a declaration that a report by school principal which led to his suspension by the board, led to prejudicial conclusions being reached about him without him being given a right of reply.”

If the media report is accurate this raises an interesting legal point about a process which results in very significant action without right to defend. It is a fundamental right that you have to know of what you have been accused and have the right of reply. This seems to be the line Mr Burke is taking. Equally the procedures allow for action in serious circumstances. “If there is an allegation of serious misconduct, the teacher may be suspended on full pay pending an investigation and the conclusion of any appeal process.” The question seems to come down to whether this provision of the Department circular is itself unconstitutional as it sets aside a fundamental right. It would seem unlikely that such a provision would be made by the civil service if it had not already been tested. We will know on Wednesday.

The email quoted elsewhere from the principal to the Board prior to the suspension mentions the ethos of the school. As that formed part of the case against him to the Board a determination will have to be made about it probably at the disciplinary hearing. Obviously the Board that passed school policies will hardly find the policies they passed are against the ethos of the school. That raises an interesting question (which may not be an interesting legal question) about if they are the body which should decide on that as they are essentially deciding on a matter they have previously judged. No doubt Mr Burke will have an extensive scriptural and theological presentation. The Board will have to put forward its reasoning if it rejects his argument. That too will be interesting. If the Board makes the expected decision it will be appealed. More of the same. While Mr Burke may not be able to get these questions into a legal forum he may be able to get them into a public forum. The thread has already posts about how messy that could get. (Recap: public division between Anglican bishops 2018).

A sad spectacle.

i suppose in all the furrowed brow thinking you've gone into here, you've bothered to check whether or not the right to represent your side of an accusation can come after suspension on full pay if the situation can be argued to merit same?

say, for instance, if there was a clear indication of erratic behaviour from a teacher on school premises.

you would have checked that out, right? before declaring a massive potential issue favouring enoch, right?

again, the efforts here are transparent