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

Judgement reserved.

Mr Burke responded: “To sit at home would be to accept I erred or transgressed or did something worthy of investigation for gross misconduct.”

Under questioning from Mr Justice Edwards, Mr Burke said he “utterly rejected” that there had been “gross misconduct” on his part.

Referring to the interruption by Mr Burke of a chapel service to voice opposition to the principal’s request, the judge said there had been a “public spectacle”.

He said Mr Burke had not addressing “other facets and dimensions to what occurred which in the eyes of some people might be gross misconduct” and that there was “a time and a place” for raising issues.

Mr Burke defended his intervention at the chapel service and also described comments he made at a staff meeting as “a measured contribution”.

From an article in the Indo. Talk about mental gymnastics.

Can't believe judges are still entertaining this nutter. Needs to be given a very short "No dice" sermon the next day.

Didn't see that. Good thinking.

Unbelievable! Do you think you are me or some guy from a deprived area would be entertained in this way, like hell they would! This whole charade is costing thousands and this bigoted individual has no intention of footing the bill.

Keeps the media away too.

I don't think the Court of Appeal deliver reserved judgements by email. I think a hearing is called to deliver the judgemnt. Here's information from the Courts Service. Sounds very much like the parties are notified of a hearing to me. They may get notified by email.

https://www.courts.ie/court-of-appeal-in-court

A "written judgement" is a judgement that explains the legal reasoning behind the decision, and it is a written document, but I think it's still presented at a hearing. It seems in the UK and some other jurisdictions that reserved judgments are usually delivered in writing (letter), but I don't see any reference to that here (happy to be corrected).

One thing that one of the Judges said early on yesterday (and I can't find the reference now) was that they explained to Burke that if the hearing ended with them reserving judgement (which is not uncommon), that they would be in their rights to consider his behaviour regarding the court order to stay away from the school after the appeal in deciding the outcome - so that if he turns up at the school next Monday (after the mid-term break), they can take that into account in coming to their decision. It's one more chance he's been given to follow the rule of law. One chance too many in my opinion, but I think the message to him when they do deliver their judgement is - since you blatantly refuse to follow the rule of law, you can't benefit from it either. I'd say this will end up in the Supreme Court, because it's a pretty important concept.

No, I worded it badly, so that's on me. I meant the rule of law in its procedural sense.

The judge in the January 18 hearing said that Burke can't expect to get court orders against another party while he's refusing to obey the orders that that party have lawfully secured against him in the first place. He's still getting access to the courts and a fair hearing, but he's expected to play by the rules, just as the school is. Also, this is civil law, not criminal.

Basically, he has to accept the authority of the court if he want to utilise the authority of the court. He can't say on one hand that the court doesn't have the authority to issue an order against him while on the other hand demand that the court issue an order for him. Doing so is seen as an attempt to put himself above the authority of the court. One of the things the judge said yesterday was “Our concern is, you’re saying to this court, 'I want to invoke your jurisdiction',” 

would it not be inequitable for the court to rule against the case in one aspect and expect the school to abide by that ruling while Enoch ignores the ruling against him?

Yeah, and that's why I think this will end up in the Supreme Court.

It's all a bit of a muddle because there's so many orders and judgement and hearings, but I don't think the appeal yesterday was against that decision (made by Mr Justice Conor Dignam on January 18th), so I would assume that there'll be another appeal against it separately. Yesterday's appeal was against the orders by Judges Ms Justice Siobhan Stack and Mr Justice Max Barrett regarding the orders the school secured against him. But it looks to me that the Court of Appeal will potentially use the same argument in denying his appeal (you can't get an appeal against an order you refuse to ever acknowledge). And that's why their "written judgement" is important - it will outline the legal reasoning behind that in detail.

And I think this is the nub of it. The argument is that it is Burke that is making the whole thing unequal in his favour by refusing to recognise the authority of the High Court and putting himself above it.

But the ref can do something about it. They can give him the ultimate red card...........jail.

I wonder could they do any subsequent hearings via video link, and after a while just turn down the volume and wheel the telly into the corner of the courtroom while they get on with other business.

Eventually I'd say.

which case, his sacking or the injunction? there is no path to the ECHR for his sacking. and standing outside a school you no longer work at is not a human rights issue.

Part of the initial reluctance on the part of the judge was that Burke was still suspended with pay from the school while he was in jail. Which meant that he was fully supported by the state, and additionally getting a full salary from the state. Burke had to be released from jail for the disciplinary hearing to go forward. And since the threat of jail doesn't seem to dissuade him from violating the law the judge is trying fines instead. He has stated that he doesn't want to send Burke back to jail, but has not ruled out doing so if needed. So we'll see where things go.