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

Open to correction, I think that the fine is for his contempt of court, so it is irrespective of whether he shows up at the school or not, weekends count as well etc.

Haven't heard anything regarding your earlier mention of the school being asked how many days he showed up, admittedly though I haven't followed the story closely the last couple of weeks as I don't feel is that newsworthy anymore. It doesn't look like he will stop showing up at the school, not sure though what he hopes to achieve anymore or even if he hopes to achieve anything or it is just "a dog with a bone" mode...

I edited my post to include the judges February ruling. Article 42 makes it clear that fines continue to rack up regardless of Saturday/Sunday/MidTerm/DuvetDays.

pdf (courts.ie) Actual ruling again, article 42.

That the judge in your link above asked for a list of each breach of the injunction is a different issue to the fines for contempt.

Those would be the days that the does, or doesn’t, turn up at the school. The Court Order was issued on the grounds that he must stay away from the school. The accumulation of the fine is what is expected to have him purge his contempt of Court -

ENOCH BURKE HAS refused to say if he will purge his contempt after the High Court ruled that he should be fined €700 for every day he refuses to comply with a court order to stay away from Wilson’s Hospital Secondary School.

In his judgement today, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said that he was giving Burke, who was purportedly dismissed from the school last week following a disciplinary hearing, until tomorrow to decide if he wishes to comply with the order directing him to stay away from the Co Westmeath school.

https://www.thejournal.ie/enoch-burke-wilsons-school-5979492-Jan2023/

Article from Jan 26th.

Dav’s interpretation is correct on both counts, as the articles Louze refers to, refer to the ongoing row, not the specific incident between Enoch and the Principal.

A row requires 2 people. One person verbally abusing another is not a row.

The abuse was one way. There was no row between the school and Burke over how to address a transgender student. The school didn't stoop to burkes level.

Honestly dude, this is one of those things where people have two choices on which to believe.

Choice A is the text of the actual judges ruling, published on the courts.ie website, carefully written by an expert (the judge) to be a definitive legal text leaving no room for mis-interpretation or confusion.

Choice B is to go with a lowly-paid court reporter untrained in the law, and what they think may have been said by the judge on the day, and was subsequently edited by a journal.ie intern to fit a 500-word article.

And the contempt is linked to his refusal to agree not to attend WHS. His attendance is the manifestation of that contempt. I really can’t see how the two can be seperated. He refused to agree not to attend the school, the fact that he continued to do so in contempt of the court order is the reason for the fine. Had he not attended after the initial court order, there would have been no need for the judge to impose the €700 per day.

Going back to Louezes initial post about journalistic misrepresentation, if he wasn’t turning up at the school, there wouldn’t have been a need for the court order, and there would be no contempt of court. The fact that he did initially, and continues to attend the school is why the order/fine were necessary.

But the wording of the decision doesn't make any mention on attendance. It specifically says:

"He will then be subject to a fine of 700 euro for every day or part of the day that passes until he purges his contempt or until the relevant part of the order of Barrett J is vacated".

I would think that for the fine itself that attendance at school and the contempt of court are considered separately, otherwise the court decision would have mentioned school attendance in their ruling. But I'm not a lawyer so I can't be sure. I would certainly though wouldn't take any news article as gospel or beacon of absolute truth. The reporting of this topic has been all over the place from day one - possibly on purpose as it generates discussion, clicks and online sharing of articles which is beneficial for the media outlets.

The judge also noted that the fine would amount to almost €5,000 per week. Meaning that he would be getting fined 7 days a week, not just on days that the school was in session. But I don't think the sealion in question really cares about that.

Ah here, cut the sealion crap. I was responding to a poster who had issues with accuracy of reporting yet hasn’t been able to confirm that the principal accused anyone of bullying and the court order/fine irrefutably relates to turning up at the school, if he wasn’t doing so, there would be no court order nor fine for contempt of a non existent order.

I don't know why I am bothering but:

Whether or not anyone was actually accused of bullying is irrelevant. He was suspended because of his grossly inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour in the school and towards the Principal. I personally don't think bullying is the most accurate term to use, but it really doesn't matter, none of this hinges on the meaning of the word bullying.

Of course the court order and by extension the fine are related to him turning up at the school, same way that the whole business is related to Burke's views on transgenderism, and his subsequent melt down, that's where it started. However the fines are directly related to his contempt of court - it doesn't actually matter what the contempt was about - and add up every day regardless of whether the school is open or Burke is there.

As I understand it, at the moment it is more about the authority of the court than anything Burke might have done at the school.

Staying away from the school will not purge his contempt of court.

He cannot purge his contempt of court while refusing to stay away from the school.

The fines will continue to rack up until he purges his contempt of court.

Are these three statements true?

Sorry edited after your reply.