The imprisonment of Enoch Burke for civil contempt could come to an end as early as next week if a planned disciplinary meeting at the school where he is employed goes ahead and reaches an outcome, sources familiar with the case have said. In that situation, he could be freed without having to purge his contempt.
Meanwhile, figures obtained by The Irish Times show Mr Burke is among a very small group of people jailed for contempt this year. So far in 2022 nine people have been jailed for indefinite periods, like Mr Burke, for civil contempt. A further four people have been jailed for definite periods, usually reserved for criminal contempt. Since 2018, the number of people jailed for contempt ranges between 12 and 24 cases annually.
Indefinite periods of imprisonment usually arise for civil contempt, when the court is trying to coerce a person into complying with a court order. The imprisonment ends when the person agrees to comply, thus purging their contempt. Many of these cases in recent years have arisen when homeowners have become involved in mortgage disputes with their lenders and effectively break orders to stay away from repossessed properties.
Definite periods of imprisonment usually apply to cases of criminal contempt. In such cases, people usually commit a crime against the legal process, such as making criminal allegations during a hearing against a court or a judge. Others have been charged with criminal contempt after using social media to identify people who are on trial for serious crimes after the trial judge ordered they could not be identified. If people are convicted of criminal contempt, they can be imprisoned for a definite short period as a sanction.
Mr Burke has been jailed over civil contempt, in refusing to comply with an order of the court restraining him from attending at Wilson’s Hospital School, Co Westmeath, where he is employed as a teacher of history and German. His case is not a criminal matter. His indefinite period of imprisonment is intended to coerce him to comply with the order restraining his attendance at his school.
If the school board of management disciplinary meeting on the case, due to take place next Wednesday, reaches a conclusion, the circumstances of the case are likely to change and the order that resulted in his imprisonment would no longer apply, according to informed sources. The outcome of a disciplinary process can range from dismissal to the employee being cleared of any wrongdoing, meaning they are free to resume work.
“Whatever the conclusion to any process like this, the person at the centre of it can always object to it or appeal it,” said one source, adding any subsequent challenge could be dealt with by the courts or Workplace Relations Commission. However, that would be a new process and would mean the order that he breached, leading to his imprisonment, would not apply to that process. That would likely result in him being freed from jail without purging his contempt.
The legal sources added Mr Burke’s initial objection, that he should not be obliged to use the “they” pronoun because it runs contrary to his Christian beliefs, is likely to be thrashed out at a subsequent process if he chooses to pursue that avenue. Any ruling from such a process, perhaps in the High Court, would clarify matters for schools and their staff – and perhaps for other workers – around future disputes over pronoun usage.
Mr Burke was placed on paid administrative leave by the school on August 24th pending the outcome of a disciplinary process. He became involved in a dispute with the school after objecting to referring to a student, who wishes to transition, by a different name and by using the pronoun “they” rather than he or she.
He says recognising transgenderism runs contrary to his Christian beliefs, which he insists are protected. He raised his objections very publicly with the principal, allegedly interrupting a church service, and also challenged the principal again at a meal after that service. The school says due to those alleged incidents, he was placed on paid administrative leave, pending the outcome of a disciplinary process. However, he continued to attend at the school, sitting in an empty classroom.
When the school secured a court order restraining him from attending while on leave, he breached that order. He was taken to court last Monday over that breach. When he told Mr Justice Michael Quinn of the High Court he would not comply with the order, he was jailed for contempt and has been in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, since. Mr Justice Quinn made it clear the court process did not relate to the pronoun dispute and related only to his continued attendance at school, contrary to the court’s order.
Transgenderism, Mr Burke told the High Court this week, was contrary to scripture, and that in this instance he would “only obey God”, and would “not obey man”; agreeing to comply with his suspension would be akin to agreeing with transgenderism.
Some of those in attendance in court this week said Mr Burke “was very articulate, spoke very well”, adding his father and brother were present and he appeared to have a group of other supporters in the court. While Mr Justice Quinn was “very understanding” and “was clearly opting for imprisonment as a last resort”, Mr Burke’s insistence resulted in his jailing. Those present said when the decision of the court to jail him was arrived at, Mr Burke did not react, though one person suspected “he was putting on a brave face” and believed he looked “worried”.
If the disciplinary meeting next Wednesday somehow did not bring an end to the process within the school, and Mr Burke’s period on paid administrative leave continued, he could remain in prison for many months if he chose not to purge his contempt. However, the court could also decide at any time to release him.
In June, the High Court released two men who had been in prison for civil contempt after they were found at a property in Carlow, which had been repossessed and from which they were ordered to stay away. After two weeks in prison, the men again refused to give an undertaking to the court to stay away from the property. However, Ms Justice Emily Egan freed the men anyway as she believed the imprisonment had served its purpose, adding that it was not appropriate for them to remain in Mountjoy Prison
The longest period spent in prison for civil contempt in recent years, of almost five months, arose from the contentious repossession of a property in Co Roscommon in 2018. Michael Anthony McGann, who owned the property at Falsk, Strokestown, Co Roscommon, and Kevin Taylor, a retired garda of Dublin Road, Longford, were among three men arrested at the house in November 2020 for interference with efforts by KBC Bank’s agents to secure the property following the eviction. When they refused to agree to the court’s order to stay away from the property they were jailed. They spent just over 4½ months in prison before deciding to purge their contempt – agreeing to stay away from the farm and house – and were released in mid-April, 2021.
This article was amended on Saturday, September 10th to reflect the fact that Mr Justice Michael Quinn rather than Mr Justice Max Barrett had been the judge when Mr Burke appeared before the court on Monday. Mr Burke subsequently appeared before Mr Justice Barrett later in the week.
