Enoch Burke claims he was defamed in newspaper article

Jailed teacher Enoch Burke claims he was defamed in a newspaper article published about him last weekend.

The High Court heard on Thursday morning that Mr Burke, who has spent over a month in Mountjoy Prison over his failure to stay away and not try to teach at the school where he works, wants to sue parties, including the Sunday Independent, over an article published in the Sunday newspaper.

Mr Burke, who was suspended in August from his position at Wilson’s Hospital School in Co Westmeath, claims he has been the subject of internal disciplinary and High Court proceedings due to his objection to transgenderism.

In a fresh development, Mr Burke’s sister, Ammi Burke, told Mr Justice Brian O’Moore that, while the publisher had temporarily removed the allegedly defamatory article from its website, her brother’s wish to come to court and seek an order under Section 33 of the 2009 Defamation Act was a matter of urgency.

Diarmaid Ferriter: We hardly need reminders of how little the Tories think of Ireland

---

Northampton’s rise to the last four: Bulking up, defensive steel and attacking prowess

---

Your top stories on Friday: Asylum seekers pitch tents in Ballsbridge; united Ireland costs would ‘equal austerity’

---

Stephen Collins: When Harris chickened out of moving McEntee, he lost the chance for a new approach to immigration

---

It is understood that the allegations are denied.

The granting of that order would ensure the article would not be republished in the future, the court heard.

Ms Burke, a qualified solicitor, said the article made false and defamatory allegations about her brother being moved to another part of Mountjoy Prison because he had been annoying other prisoners.

She said the claims were wrong and the Irish Prison Service had confirmed that the allegations contained in the article were not true, the information is false, and that there was no problem with Enoch Burke.

She said her brother’s case has been the subject of many national, local and international media reports, as well as commentary on social media.

Her brother was concerned that what he claims are damaging and untrue allegations in the report could be repeated, particularly in the international media, and could also prejudice his ongoing case with Wilson’s Hospital and damage his reputation.

She said that there had been many subsequent defamatory posts on social media about her brother.

She said that there had been correspondence with the publisher of the article, but her brother was not happy with the response.

She said although the article had been taken down, her brother had no assurance it would not be republished and had decided to seek an urgent injunction against the newspaper.

She said that the matter was so urgent that her brother should be allowed to come before the court at some stage on Thursday.

Mr Justice O’Moore said that he was prepared to allow Mr Burke to come before the court on Friday morning but rejected the application for Mr Burke to be produced before the court by the prison authorities any earlier.

The judge also said that, because the article had been taken down, he was not prepared to make any order against the newspapers without them having notice of Mr Burke’s application.

He told Ms Burke that her brother was being accommodated with an early return date to make his application.

As the judge in charge of the High Court’s chancery list, Mr Justice O’Moore said he was now taking charge of the court action between Mr Burke and his employer that had resulted in the teacher’s incarceration for contempt of court.

The judge said he was “bemused” by the claim that the article could prejudice the ongoing issues between Mr Burke and the school.

He had not seen the article, Mr Justice O’Moore said, adding he would not in any way be influenced by media reporting of the dispute.

The judge said he also wanted to hear on Friday from the school and Mr Burke about managing that case with a view to having it fully heard before the High Court as soon as possible.

Mr Burke, who objects to addressing a student with the pronoun “they” and opposes transgenderism, was committed to prison last month until he agrees to obey the order not to attend or attempt to teach any classes at Wilson’s Hospital School.

The school obtained an order committing Mr Burke, who had been suspended pending the hearing of a disciplinary hearing into allegations of misconduct against him, to prison over his failure to comply with the injunction.

Mr Burke has brought an appeal before the Court of Appeal against orders including the granting of the temporary ex parte injunction against him and the subsequent decision to keep the injunction in place pending the final hearing of the case.

He also has appealed against the High Court’s dismissal of applications brought by him aimed at setting aside his suspension from the school.

The appeal is due to be mentioned before the Court of Appeal at the Courts of Criminal Justice on Friday.

Mr Burke has not appealed the High Court orders committing him to prison for contempt.

Mr Burke, an evangelist and a history and German teacher, was suspended on full pay late last August pending an investigation into alleged misconduct, which he denies.

Arising out of his refusal to stay away from the school, the board of management obtained a High Court injunction against him.

His refusal to comply with that order resulted in his incarceration.

Mr Burke claims that the case centres around his opposition to a direction by his employer to address a student at the school, who wishes to transition, by the pronoun “they” and by a different name, contrary to his Christian beliefs.

He says the suspension is unlawful, unfair and unreasonable and in breach of his constitutional rights to religion, freedom of expression and conscience.

Mr Burke, who rejects the school’s claims, has brought his own proceedings against the school where he seeks various orders and declarations including a declaration that the disciplinary process against him is unlawful and a breach of his constitutional rights, including his rights to freedom of expression, conscience, and religion.

He also seeks various orders preventing the school from continuing his paid administrative leave and the disciplinary process against him.

The school claims the disciplinary process commenced after Mr Burke publicly voiced his alleged opposition to the school principal’s direction to address a student, who wishes to transition, by a different name and by the pronoun “they” rather than he or she.

It is claimed that Mr Burke interrupted a service last June that was attended by clergy, staff, past and present pupils, parents and board members. The school says he asked the school’s then-principal, Niamh McShane, to withdraw the earlier demand regarding the student.

It is also claimed he said that he could not agree with transgenderism, and said it went against the school’s ethos.

After the meal, he is alleged to have approached the principal and again asked her to withdraw the request regarding the student.

Arising out of Mr Burke’s alleged conduct, a disciplinary process was commenced, and considered by the board, resulting in a decision to place him on administrative leave pending the outcome of the process.

In a sworn statement to the court Mr Burke said he rejects the claims made by the former school principal that he questioned her loudly at the function.

Mr Burke said the former principal’s allegations against him are “entirely false”.