High Court orders immediate prison committal for school staff member in persistent contempt of trespass injunction.

THE HIGH COURT

[2025] IEHC 635

[2022/4507P]

BETWEEN

THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF WILSON’S HOSPITAL SCHOOL

PLAINTIFF

AND

ENOCH BURKE

DEFENDANT

Judgment (No. 1) of Mr. Justice Cregan delivered on the 18th day of November, 2025

Introduction

1. This case involves the most deliberate, sustained and concerted attack by Mr. Burke, and other members of the Burke family, on the authority of the civil courts and the Rule of Law in this country in recent times. It is important that the courts ensure that the Rule of Law is maintained, that those who deliberately breach court orders are held to account, and that those who seek the protection of the courts against malign teachers will not be turned away.

2. This is another application by the Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School for an order for the attachment and committal of Mr. Burke for failure to comply with the order of the High Court (Mr. Justice Owens) made on 17th July, 2023 under which the defendant was restrained from entering on or trespassing on premises at Wilson’s Hospital School.

3. The case arises out of a dispute between the school and Mr. Burke in which Mr. Burke has been dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct arising out of (1) his refusal to obey a direction of the school that a transgender pupil be addressed by the surname “they”

and (2) because of his gross misconduct at a school religious service (and other events) and the manner in which he conducted his objection to transgenderism.

4. The school initially suspended Mr. Burke and then, in August/September 2022, sought and obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining Mr. Burke from trespassing on the school premises. Mr. Burke refused to abide by this court injunction. As a result, the school was forced to bring a motion for attachment and committal. Mr. Burke was then committed to prison on a number of occasions for contempt of court. The matter came back before the court on numerous occasions but on each and every occasion Mr. Burke refused to purge his contempt. Eventually, Mr. Justice O’Moore came to the view that Mr. Burke should be released from prison as it appeared that he seemed to derive some benefit from the publicity by remaining in prison. Instead he imposed a fee of €700 for each day Mr. Burke trespassed on school property.

5. Mr. Burke was subsequently sent back to prison for repeated breaches of the order. Mr. Justice Nolan, in December, 2024, also subsequently released Mr. Burke from prison and increased Mr. Justice O’Moore’s fines from €700 a day to €1,400 a day and subsequently to €2,000 a day. The amount in fines currently owed by the defendant to the Courts Office is in excess of €225,000.

6. The Court also made a garnishee order which had the effect that Mr. Burke’s salary from the Department of Education was diverted to the Court’s Office to ensure the payment of the fines. The Court also appointed a receiver by way of equitable execution to obtain monies from Mr. Burke’s bank account. A sum of approximately €40,000 was retrieved in this way.

7. However despite his time in prison, and despite these fines, Mr. Burke persists in disobeying the court order.

What this case is – and is not – about

8. It is important to be clear about what this aspect of the case is – and is not – about. This aspect of the case is not about transgenderism. If Mr. Burke had been directed by the court to comply with the principal’s direction, and to refer to a pupil by their new pronoun, against his religious beliefs and he refused, then it would be about transgenderism.

9. But the court order does not direct him to say or do anything of the sort that might conflict with his religious beliefs. The court order simply directs that, as he has been dismissed from his position for gross misconduct, he must not trespass on school premises. However Mr. Burke has refused to obey this court order for the last three years.

10. It needs to be restated clearly by this court – as has been stated clearly by previous courts – that Mr. Burke has not been imprisoned or fined for his views on transgender issues, which he is perfectly entitled to have and to articulate. Mr. Burke has been imprisoned, and fined, for contempt of court, because he has breached court orders directing him not to trespass on school property. I am sure that any of the pupils in Wilson’s Hospital, from transition year up, would understand that distinction. It is not difficult to understand.

The application for attachment and committal

11. The plaintiff’s application for attachment and committal was made returnable before the High Court during the vacation on 4th September, 2025. On that date, Nolan J. indicated that, in his view, further imprisonment for contempt of court was not an appropriate remedy and he adjourned the matter for further consideration before this Court on 14th October, 2025. In addition, he also requested the school to consider hiring security guards to keep Mr. Burke out of the school premises and to obtain quotes for doing so.

12. The school obtained quotes for security guards and exhibited them on affidavit. It appears that one of the quotes for the provision of such services amounted to approximately €760 per week (plus VAT). The school then retained such security guards starting on Monday, 13th October, 2025 wholly and exclusively to prevent Mr. Burke from trespassing on the school premises.

The first hearing on 14th October, 2025

13. The matter came before me on Tuesday, 14th October, 2025. Even though this was a motion for attachment and committal, and even though Mr. Burke had been properly served, Mr. Burke did not appear in court on that date. In fact, at that time he was committing another breach of the court order by trespassing on the school grounds on that day. Moreover, he drove a car – a Hyundai – onto the school grounds in flagrant contempt of the court order.

14. Before the hearing, I had not been given a full set of papers. I had only received the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion, the affidavits of Christopher Woods of 27th August, 2025, of Noel Cunningham of 27th August, 2025, of Shy Eager of 26th August, 2025, the replying affidavit of Enoch Burke of 3rd September, 2025, the second affidavit of Noel Cunningham of 2nd September, 2025 and the affidavit of Shy Eager of 2nd September, 2025. Mr Burke’s legal submissions were not furnished to me in those papers.

15. At the hearing, counsel for the plaintiff handed up two booklets of papers to the court headed Volumes 1 and Volume 2 (See Transcript 14th October, 2025, page 4). I had not received those papers prior to that point. Volume 1 and Volume 2 did not contain Mr Burke’s replying affidavit of 3rd September, 2025 (which I already had) or his legal submissions of 3rd September 2025 (which I did not have). I have no difficulty in accepting that Mr. Burke’s legal submissions had been furnished to the school (and even to Mr. Justice Nolan) on 3rd September, 2025, but they were not received by me before this hearing.

16. At this first hearing before me, even though Mr. Enoch Burke did not appear, Dr. Isaac Burke, his brother, appeared and sought to make representations on his behalf. Dr. Isaac Burke explained to the court that Mr. Enoch Burke was not there because he was at his place of work. I indicated to Dr. Isaac Burke that he had no right of audience before the court. Mr. Isaac Burke replied “I’m aware of the rules of the court, Judge”.

17. Dr Isaac Burke, despite my clear direction that he had no right of audience before the court, made several other statements to the court and I had to remind him again and again that he had no right of audience.

18. Dr. Isaac Burke also tried to hand up to the court a letter – apparently from Mr. Enoch Burke – to the Disciplinary Appeal Panel (“DAP”) complaining about one of the members of the panel. I refused, however, to accept this letter from Dr. Burke. He had no right of audience and he had no right of representation. These rules exist for a reason: to ensure that papers are received in a proper manner only from parties who are represented.

19. Having heard the affidavit evidence opened to the court by Ms. Mallon BL, counsel for the plaintiffs, I indicated, at this hearing, that consideration could be given to the possible sequestration of motor vehicles used to commit acts of contempt of court by driving onto the school premises and related matters. I then adjourned the matter for one week.

The second hearing on 22nd October, 2025

20. The matter came before me again the following week on Wednesday, 22nd October, 2025. Again, there was no appearance by Mr. Burke as he was committing a further breach of the court order by continuing to trespass at the plaintiff’s premises.

21. Again, Dr. Isaac Burke appeared in court and sought to make representations on his behalf. I indicated to Dr. Burke, again, that he had no right of audience and asked him to desist from interrupting the court. Despite this, he continued to do so. I gave a first warning, and a second warning, to ask him to desist but he ignored these directions from the Court and continued disrupting the court.

22. At this hearing, counsel for the plaintiff handed into the court “a short booklet” of papers. This consisted of the affidavit of Christopher Woods sworn on 10th October, 2025, the affidavit of Noel Cunningham of 20th October 2025 and the affidavit of Christopher Woods sworn on 20th October, 2025. This also did not include Mr, Burke’s legal submissions of 3rd September, 2025. Mr, Burke had also furnished a replying affidavit of 22nd October, 2025 which was handed into court on 22nd October, 2025 separately, by solicitors for the plaintiff.

23. Counsel for the plaintiff opened the affidavits to the court, including the affidavit of Mr Burke of 3rd September. This affidavit included a reference to legal submissions by Mr, Burke. I indicated to counsel at that time that I did not have a copy of those legal submissions (see Transcript 22nd October, 2025, page 22). Dr. Isaac Burke interrupted to say that the submissions had been furnished to all parties four weeks ago. I indicated to Dr. Isaac Burke that I was now going to ask the Gardaí to remove him from the court room as I was not going to tolerate his repeated disruptions. I rose for a few moments to allow this to happen.

24. When I sat again, Mr. Enoch Burke’s father, Mr. Sean Burke, then sought to shout at me and generally remonstrate with the court. I indicated to Mr. Sean Burke that, if he continued in this manner, I would ask that he be removed from the court. Mr. Sean Burke continued to speak and I gave him a second warning. When I indicated to Mr. Sean Burke that I would ask for him to be removed from the court, he left the court voluntarily.

25. When I resumed the hearing, counsel for the plaintiff corrected an earlier statement she had made (in which she said she did not have a copy of Mr. Burke’s submissions) to confirm that she did have a copy of them. She then indicated that Mr Enoch Burke had put in legal submissions on 3rd September, 2025. Those submissions, however, were not received by me as of 22nd October, 2025. I asked counsel did she have a copy of the submissions and she said it had been handed up to the Registrar by Dr Isaac Burke. I indicated that the Registrar would not receive them from Dr Isaac Burke. This was because he had no right of audience or of representation, and in the circumstances, I would not receive any documents from such a person. Counsel for the plaintiff, Ms Mallon BL, indicated that she had a copy which her solicitor could hand up. However, instead, I asked Ms Mallon BL to get her solicitor to email it to the Registrar later on. This was emailed to the Registrar on the same day – 22nd October, 2025 at 16.19pm – and then furnished to me. So there is a clear record of the day and time I first received Mr. Burke’s legal submissions. There are sometimes miscommunications or documents not being forwarded. This happens on a frequent enough basis. However a polite enquiry as to whether the court has the relevant documents is the appropriate response.

26. Counsel for the plaintiff then opened the various affidavits, updating the court as to the position with the security guards and the daily reports prepared by the security guards in respect of Mr. Burke’s continued trespassing on school grounds. It is clear from these reports that Mr. Burke has continued his trespass on school grounds on each and every day from the start of the school term to date.

The third hearing on 29th October, 2025

27. The matter came before me again on Wednesday 29th October, 2025. Mr. Burke was present in the court that day. This might have been because the school was on half term break.

28. Ms. Mallon BL for the plaintiff, fairly, indicated to the court that she “had in fact been mistaken” when she said she had not received Mr. Burke’s legal submissions on 3rd September, when she had in fact received them. She then opened recent affidavits which had been filed in the matter, but before she finished, Mr. Enoch Burke rose to his feet to accuse her of lying. I asked him to allow Ms. Mallon to finish her submissions but he refused to obey this direction and then accused the court of telling lies as well.

29. This related to the issue about whether I had received his legal submissions. I indicated to Mr. Burke that I had now received his legal submissions and I had read them and would hear him after Ms. Mallon BL had finished.

30. Mrs. Martina Burke shouted out that Ms. Mallon BL was “a liar”. Mr. Sean Burke also accused Ms. Mallon BL of “telling lies”. I repeatedly asked Mr. Sean Burke not to interrupt the court or I would exclude him.

31. Moments later, Dr. Isaac Burke jumped up and shouted “Judge you’re lying, you’re lying so what happened was last week” and then Dr. Burke said “I am Dr. Isaac Burke and I’ve been listening to lies.” (See transcript 29th October, 2025 page 16 and 17.) Again having given a number of warnings to Dr. Isaac Burke, I asked the gardaí to remove Dr. Isaac Burke from the court whereupon Mrs. Martina Burke shouted “Disgrace, lies, lies, lies” and Dr. Isaac Burke said “Shame on you, God will judge your wickedness Mr. Cregan. God will judge your wickedness”. I rose whilst the guards removed Dr. Isaac Burke. Even outside the court I could hear the continual noise of shouting and roaring from members of the Burke family.

32. After order was restored, I then resumed the hearing. Ms. Mallon BL finished her submissions and Mr. Burke then made his submissions. I will deal with the substance of these submissions later in this judgment.

33. Mr. Burke and Dr. Isaac Burke seemed to be exercised by the fact that I ordered Dr. Burke to be removed from court on the previous occasion when he was trying to hand up a copy of legal submissions to the court. This is however entirely to ignore the context of what was happening. Mr. Enoch Burke did not appear at this attachment and committal hearing and Dr. Isaac Burke sought to appear on his behalf. I informed him that he had no right of audience, as he knew well. Despite this he tried to address the court on numerous occasions. I refused to allow him to do so and, despite this, he kept ignoring the directions of the court and speaking over the court. In any event, this incident proves the wisdom of never accepting a document from a person who is not a party before the court. Such persons are often not to be trusted and their version of events is often incorrect. Dr. Isaac Burke’s only role was to sit in the court and listen and take a note, if he wished, for his brother. Despite this, Dr. Isaac Burke insisted again and again and again and again on interposing himself and seeking to impose his views and his wishes on the court.

34. At page 22 of the transcript when Mr. Enoch Burke began his submissions, he stated “Now we will go back to the submission that you lied about judge”.

35. Subsequently, Mr. Burke, without enquiring into the facts, and in respect of an exchange the previous week at which he was not present, repeatedly accused the court of “dishonesty” and lying. (See transcript page 67 on) These insults were levelled at the Bench by Mr. Burke in a threatening, abusive and verbally aggressive manner.

36. I want to emphasise that I do not take these allegations personally. They are levelled at me in my role as a judge of the High Court. However the insult is to the office I hold and to the administration of justice. It is, prima facie, contempt in the face of the court.

37. Subsequently, when counsel for the Attorney General was making submissions in respect of the fine which had been imposed on Mr. Burke, Mrs. Martina Burke shouted “he’s not paying it” (Transcript page 107) and “my son won’t pay anything. He won’t pay a penny”.

38. I am satisfied that the conduct of Dr. Isaac Burke at this hearing on 29th October, 2025, prima facie, constitutes contempt in the face of the court.

39. I am also of the view that the conduct of Mr. Enoch Burke in his accusations and allegations against the court also amounts prima facie to contempt in the face of the court. These matters will therefore be brought forward to a hearing, of the court’s own motion, as to whether these matters constitute contempt of court.

The fourth hearing on Wednesday 5th November, 2025

40. The court directed the parties to appear again in court on Wednesday 5th November, 2025. This was because in the course of reviewing the papers and preparing a judgment, I was concerned that, because of the significant amount of evidence which had been given on affidavits since the hearing on 4th September, 2025, the court should consider afresh whether Mr. Burke should be committed to prison for his ongoing contempt of the court orders. It was necessary therefore to give him notice of that fact so that he could address that matter in his submissions. There were also other issues – about sequestration of motor vehicles, fines, a garnishee order and issues about videos which Mr. Burke had taken and then uploaded to X – which had been discussed in court. In the circumstances I requested the parties to come before the court on 5th November, 2025 and I gave all parties further directions in that regard. I will set this out in more detail later in this judgment.

41. I also indicated to Mr. Burke that I was considering reducing the daily fine but in order to do this I needed to know more details about Mr. Burke’s financial position. I directed Mr. Burke to file a further affidavit within seven days setting out his assets and liabilities and his income and expenses. I also directed Mr. Burke to set out on affidavit the ownership of the two vehicles in question (i.e. the Hyundai and the Nissan Qashqai). I also indicated that he could file further legal submissions setting out why he says he should not be committed to prison for his ongoing contempt.

42. I also indicated at this hearing that I was invoking the contempt of court jurisdiction in relation to Dr. Isaac Burke because of his unacceptable conduct and his constant disruptions of the court hearings at the previous hearing. This however, did not dissuade him from further attacks on the court.

43. I indicated to the parties that I would then convene a hearing the following week, on Wednesday 12th November, 2025, to consider these affidavits, these legal submissions and any further submissions which would be made on behalf of the school, and on behalf of Mr. Burke, and I would then reserve my judgment.

44. Mr. Burke complained that some of those issues were not in the school’s notice of motion. That is precisely the reason why it was necessary for the court to crystallise these issues and to direct the school to put in a new notice of motion setting out all of the issues so that Mr. Burke was fully on notice of the various aspects of the case that he had to meet. It was clear that the school in its affidavit evidence complained about these matters.

45. In the course of this hearing on 5th November Dr. Isaac Burke again began shouting at the court as did Mrs. Martina Burke. Ms. Ammi Burke also interrupted the court with her own remarks. (See transcript page 21 on)

46. Mrs. Martina Burke intervened saying “You are caught judge you are caught” and subsequently stating “God is not mocked. You shouldn’t be on that chair if you don’t submit to the Appeal Court, you shouldn’t be on that chair if you don’t submit to the Appeal Court why is it taking you so long? How many weeks have you to decide when you are submitting to the Appeal Court or not”. I subsequently requested the gardaí to remove Mrs. Martina Burke from the court. As I rose to allow that to happen, Dr. Isaac Burke shouted “God will judge you for your wickedness” and Mrs. Martina Burke shouted “Move away now, get off the bench, get off the bench”.

47. The court rose whilst the gardaí removed Mrs. Martina Burke from the court.

48. When I returned Mr. Enoch Burke then said

“It does come first and you have made the orders now and I want the judgment now in this chamber this very hour. I am entitled to it, I am entitled to it, take that smirk off your face. You have told them to get the van ready for my imprisonment. Where is it? Where is it in the order of Judge Alexander Owens?” (Transcript page 28)

49. And a moment later Mr. Burke said: “You have had a week to think about it. Where is it?”

50. Mr. Enoch Burke repeatedly demanded a copy of my judgment like a petulant child.

51. Ms. Ammi Burke interjected on a number of occasions and I requested the guards to remove Ms. Ammi Burke from the court. I rose whilst the guards did so.

52. When I returned Dr. Isaac Burke stated: “Shame on you for your wickedness. You know the scripture says ‘Be not deceived; God is not mocked.’ I don’t know if you ever read the Bible but it says in Galacians ‘God is not mocked’. It says ‘Whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap’.”

53. I then asked the guards to remove Dr. Isaac Burke. Dr. Isaac Burke said “I will tell you when you are in a court for three years and you have been dealing with liars like yourself for three years you know that is what you see. You have been dealing with liars and lies. Shame on you.” Mr. Enoch Burke added “Shameful, shameful”. (Transcript page 30)

54. I should add that all of this verbal abuse by Dr. Isaac Burke and Mr. Enoch Burke was delivered with raised voices and with considerable anger. The dry pages of the transcript do not accurately capture the atmosphere of the occasion.

55. Mr. Burke’s remark – “Take that smirk off your face” – in particular was an extraordinary comment to make to a judge of the High Court. I am at a loss as to why he felt that he should make that remark. I will assess this comment later.

56. After I resumed the hearing Mr. Burke said “I am entitled now to know judge, your judgment in the matter. You have removed my family, you’ve made a mock of me, you have coached the board, I have waited a week, I made my submissions which you lied about and said you didn’t have, you couldn’t lay your hands on them, you didn’t know what they were. Now I am entitled to a judgment”. (Transcript page 30)

57. Subsequently he said “Now I made my submissions I didn’t get a judgment could I have it please”. (Transcript page 31)

58. Subsequently Mr. Burke said “No judge you weren’t asked to make any order about those we have been through that. You are laughing because that’s a form of lying judge. If you would be honest now and say you weren’t asked to make any order about those things.”

59. Having given the directions to all parties, I then brought the hearing to a close and I rose to allow the parties to gather their belongings and to leave court. I then sat again to deal with the next case which was also a difficult matter. However when I returned Mr. Burke was still in his place and continued to complain and harangue the court until eventually I had to ask the gardaí to remove Mr. Burke from the court.

60. In the light of all of this disgraceful behaviour, I intend to invoke the contempt of court jurisdiction against Dr. Isaac Burke, Mrs. Martina Burke, Ms. Ammi Burke and also Mr. Enoch Burke in relation to these matters.

61. They will be given an opportunity to obtain legal representation and/or legal aid should they so wish. They will be entitled to address the court as to why their comments did or did not amount to contempt of court. If the court concludes that their conduct did amount to contempt of court, it will then consider what is the appropriate form of punishment (i.e. a term of imprisonment or a fine or both).

The plaintiff’s motion dated 5th November, 2025

62. At the hearing on 5th November 2025, the court directed that the plaintiff bring a new motion before the court in respect of a number of matters. This was because there were a number of issues which had been complained of by the school in its various affidavits in the course of the first motion. The matters about which the school complained raised questions in the mind of the court as to what orders, if any, should be made to remedy the matters about which they complained. For example, the school complained that the defendant had driven onto the plaintiff’s property, in breach of the court order, in two separate motor vehicles. This raised the question as to whether these motor vehicles should be sequestrated. The plaintiff in its affidavits also complained about the fact that Mr. Burke and other family members had made video recordings of the defendant trespassing on the plaintiff’s property and had posted these videos on his X account. This raised questions in the mind of the court as to whether orders should be made directing the defendant to take down these recordings. Likewise, the plaintiff complained about the fact that, although it had been suggested by Mr. Justice Nolan that it should obtain security guards, the cost of these security guards was considerable and it had sought some contribution from the Department of Education. This raised questions as to whether the plaintiff would be entitled to garnishee the defendant’s income which he is still currently receiving from the Department of Education. Most importantly, all this extra evidence raised questions in the mind of the court as to whether the court should consider afresh the question of committing Mr. Burke to prison.

63. The plaintiff’s first motion sought attachment and committal (at paragraph 1) and “Such other orders as to this honourable court shall seem just and convenient (at paragraph 2).” Nolan J. had indicated that he did not believe that committal was the appropriate remedy. However, as set out above, I was concerned at the considerable accumulation of affidavit evidence from the school since 4th September, 2025 and I considered that the court should consider imprisoning the defendant again. I was conscious that there had to be scrupulous adherence to fair procedures and procedural requirements, so I directed the school to file a new notice of motion and to bring that notice of motion before the court on 12th November, 2025. Although Mr. Burke complained of these directions, they were done in order to ensure he was in no doubt about the case which he had to meet and the nature of the orders which might be made against him. I should also add that the court could have decided to make any of these orders of its own motion despite the fact that they were not specifically set out in the plaintiff’s notice of motion. It was in order to ensure that the defendant could address each and every application set out in the notice of motion that I directed the school to do so. I had not, as Mr. Burke suggests, decided these issues in advance. As I indicated to Mr. Burke, I had not made up my mind on any of the issues until all of the submissions were complete. That is because the various issues raised complex issues of law and fact, both in relation to Mr. Burke, and in relation to members of his family, that needed careful consideration. In addition I also sought the assistance of the Attorney General who, through his counsel, provided helpful legal submissions on a number of the issues.

64. The reliefs set out in the revised notice of motion were as follows:

1. An order for attachment and committal of the defendant for failure to comply with the order of the High Court (Mr. Justice Owens) made on 17th July, 2023 whereby the defendant was restrained from entering or trespassing on premises at the plaintiff’s school.

2. An order sequestrating a Hyundai vehicle registration 151G263.

3. An order sequestrating a Nissan Qashqai vehicle registration 151WH832.

4. A garnishee order ordering that all debts currently owing from the Department of Education and Youth to the defendant should be directed to the school.

5. An order restraining the defendant and any third party from recording or videoing or taking photographs on the premises of the plaintiff’s property without the express permission of the plaintiff.

6. An order requiring the defendant to remove any recording or video taken on the grounds of the property which he has posted to his X account or any platform on the internet.

7. An order requiring the defendant to remove the video he posted on his X account on 14th October, 2025 which video was of a security officer engaging with the defendant on the grounds of the plaintiff’s property.

8. An order requiring the defendant to remove the video he posted on his X account on the 24th October, 2025 which video was of a security officer engaging with the defendant on the plaintiff’s property.

9. An order directing the third party to remove any recording or video or photographs taken on the premises of the plaintiff that the defendant has posted to his X account or any other platform on the internet.

The fifth hearing on 12th November 2025

65. The court sat again on Wednesday 12th November, 2025 to consider the plaintiff’s revised notice of motion and affidavit. Neither Mr. Burke not any other member of the Burke family appeared. Ms. Mallon BL for the school confirmed that Mr. Burke had been served with the papers and it was also clear to me that Mr. Burke knew full well that this matter was listed for hearing on Wednesday 12th November, 2025. His decision therefore not to appear was one which he made himself. I requested Ms. Mallon BL to open the relevant affidavits and to make her submissions, which she did. Ms. Mallon also indicated that her solicitor would prepare, swear and file an affidavit of service and file it in the Central Office, which was done.

66. Counsel for the Attorney General also made brief submissions to the court and counsel for the receiver also handed in an affidavit in respect of the amount of money collected by the receiver.

67. Mr. Burke however did not file an affidavit as directed by the court. His refusal to comply with a court order to prepare a statement of assets and income is yet another example of his refusal to obey a court order. Clearly, he now will not obey any court order. It also raises questions in the mind of the court as to whether he has any other sources of income.

Mr Burke’s legal submissions in reply to motion for attachment and committal

68. Mr. Enoch Burke has filed two affidavits in reply and also two sets of legal submissions. The first legal submission is dated 3rd September, 2025 and sets out his legal argument as to why the order of Mr. Justice Owens is not valid and lawful and therefore, why he is not in breach of the order. The second submission is in relation to the issue of sequestration of motor vehicles. I heard Mr. Burke’s submission on both issues at the hearing on 29th October, 2025.

69. I will deal first with Mr. Burke’s legal submission as to why the order of Mr. Justice Owens is not valid or lawful and therefore, why he is not bound by it. In summary, his argument is that a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in a separate set of proceedings brought by him – in relation to alleged bias on the part of one of the members of the DAP – undermines the legality and validity of the order of Mr. Justice Owens.

70. In order to consider this submission properly it is necessary to set out the background and context in which this submission is made by Mr. Burke. (i)The Principal’s Report.

71. The Principal of Wilson’s Hospital School prepared a report for the Board of Management, in accordance with stage 4 (i.e. dismissal for gross misconduct) of the Revised Procedures for the Suspension and Dismissal of Teachers.

72. It is reasonable to summarise the principal’s report which was prepared for the Board of Management as consisting of two issues. The first was what the Principal regarded as the completely unacceptable manner in which Mr. Burke had expressed his views on transgenderism - particularly in relation to his outbursts at the church service which interrupted the school service; the second was his refusal to accept transgenderism as a policy of the school.

(ii) Suspension and Injunctions

73. Subsequently the Board of Management suspended Mr. Burke until the hearing of the Principal’s report could be considered.

74. Mr. Burke however continued to attend the school. As a result, the school sought and obtained interlocutory injunctions to prevent Mr. Burke trespassing on school property. Mr. Burke however, breached these court orders and was eventually committed to prison for contempt of court.

(iii) Mr. Enoch Burke’s appeal to the Court of Appeal

75. Mr. Burke appealed to the Court of Appeal against the injunctions and the orders of attachment and committal. The Court of Appeal rejected his appeal.

76. In Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital v. Enoch Burke [2023] IECA 52, all members of the Court of Appeal made it crystal clear that the injunction granted by the court had nothing to do with transgenderism but was granted because the school sought and obtained an injunction to restrain him from trespassing on school premises as he had been suspended for gross misconduct.

77. The Court also made other remarks which are of relevance to the hearings before me and show a consistent pattern of behaviour by Mr. Burke.

78. At paragraph 22, of her judgment, Whelan J. stated: “22. A particular feature of Mr. Burke's approach is the degree of verbal aggression and disrespect exhibited in his engagement particularly towards the school Principal. Such conduct is alluded to as having taken place in the confines of a staff meeting in May 2022. More importantly on Mr. Burke's own version of events he interrupted a formal church service on the 21st June 2022 at the school at which the officiant was Bishop Glenfield. His demeanour and unorthodox behaviour were very much evident in the course of the presentation of his appeal before this court. He granted himself free rein to speak disparagingly about and deploy language calculated to traduce and demean those with whose conduct or decisions he did not agree. The conduct of Mr. Burke at the religious service in the chapel was wholly disrespectful towards the school Principal and entirely inappropriate. By the standards of civilised behaviour his conduct was simply outrageous. “25. By any objective measure his conduct was highly confrontational and calculated to cause maximum embarrassment and stress to the school Principal and to undermine her publicly and openly in front of key stakeholders, parents, some students, clergy, members of the church hierarchy, and other persons connected with the school as well as teachers. “27. By any measure the disruption of the Chapel Service in June 2022 at which the Bishop was officiating was wholly unorthodox and Mr. Burke's lack of insight into the inappropriateness of his behaviour speaks to either his inability or unwillingness to engage in dialogue or discussion as one might conventionally expect to find in a school setting where through the mechanism of dialogue a means would be arrived at which would be mutually respectful of the teacher's concerns on the one hand and the spiritual and moral values of a student and their family on the other.

28. The appellant appears to lack all insight into the extent to which his conduct was inappropriate, undermining, intimidating, contumelious towards and demeaning of the school Principal. Even on his own version of events, his behaviour was confrontational and wholly out of place having regard to the nature of the event as a ceremony of religious worship, the wide variety of attendees and the solemnity of the occasion. His approach in all matters appears to be directed towards getting his own way at all costs whilst being incapable and/or unwilling to engage in respectful dialogue in an effort to achieve a mutually acceptable compromise which might adequately address his concerns. One is driven to the conclusion that he quite enjoys conflict and confrontation and the passing notoriety his wilful and contumacious contempt of court has bought him.

……

33. It would be very evident to any right-minded or reasonable person that the continuing conduct of Mr Burke attending at the school grounds daily is not alone a wilful contempt of court but visits anguish and ongoing stress and anxiety upon the minor concerned and those who care about their welfare.”

(iv) The judgment and order of Mr. Justice Owens

79. All these injunctions and decisions were given in interlocutory applications (i.e. applications before the trial of the action). However, the full trial of the school’s action against Mr. Enoch Burke was heard before Mr. Justice Owens on 28th, 29th, 30th and 31st March, 2023.

80. In this trial, the school sought:

(i) a declaration that the decision to put the defendant on paid administrative leave was lawful;

(ii) an injunction restraining Mr. Burke from trespassing on the property of the Wilson’s Hospital School; and

(iii) damages for trespass.

81. Mr. Burke, as he pointed out in his submissions before this court, filed a full defence and counterclaim to the proceedings. In his counterclaim, Mr. Burke pleaded as follows:- “(1) It is pleaded that Principal Niamh McShane’s demand that all staff address a male student by a new name and the pronoun ‘they’ is manifestly unlawful and unconstitutional.

(2) It is pleaded that the disciplinary process being conducted by the plaintiff, including the placing of the defendant on administrative leave is in breach of, and an unlawful interference with, the defendant’s rights under Article 40.6.1(i), 44.1 and 44.2 of the Irish Constitution.”

82. Mr. Burke also pleaded that no disciplinary action at all was warranted in the defendant’s case and that there was no serious misconduct to warrant a stage 4 disciplinary process. Mr. Burke, in his counterclaim, sought:

(1) A declaration that the disciplinary process being conducted by the plaintiff, including the placing of the defendant on administrative leave is in breach of and an unlawful interference with the defendant’s rights under Article 40.6.1(i), Article 44.1 and Article 44.2 of the Irish Constitution;

(2) A declaration that the decision to put the defendant on paid administrative leave was unreasonable, unfair, unjust and unlawful and other matters.

83. The hearing commenced on 28th March 2023. However, as Owens J. stated at para. 15 of his decision:- “On the first day of trial of this action Enoch Burke was disorderly and in persistent contempt of court. He was excluded from further participation, except on condition that he undertake to comply with rulings of this Court. During the hearing he was repeatedly contacted and advised that he was welcome to resume participation if he gave this undertaking. He chose not to respond or to make his intentions clear. As a result of this lack of clarity, some evidence and arguments addressed issues which do not require to be decided.”

84. At para. 16, Owens J. stated:-

“As Enoch Burke's counterclaim has not been advanced, any claims which he makes in it must be dismissed. These include his claim for an injunction preventing continuation by the Board of his suspension.” (Emphasis added).

85. At para. 17, he stated:-

“This counterclaim also included claims for declarations that the disciplinary process conducted against him was an unlawful interference with constitutional rights and that a report prepared by the school principal was compiled in breach of natural justice and otherwise than in accordance with an administrative circular governing disciplinary sanctions.”

86. At para. 18, he states:-

“Dismissal of the counterclaim operates as a final determination of all other issues capable of being raised in answer to the Board's claim. It is unnecessary for this Court to determine claims by Enoch Burke that the Board interfered with his constitutional rights.” (Emphasis added).

87. In the order made on 17th July, 2023 (and perfected on 23rd August, 2023), the order recites:- “The defendant was excluded from court on 28th day of March, 2023 because of his contempt of court except on condition that he undertake to obey the rulings of the court and elected not to further participate in the hearing of the action.”

88. In the operative parts of the order, the order recites:-

“It is ordered that:

(1) The counterclaim of the defendant do stand dismissed as said defendant failed to advance same

(2) The defendant be restrained forthwith from entering or trespassing on premises at Wilson’s Hospital School in possession or control of the plaintiff without the consent of the plaintiff

(3) The court doth declare that the suspension of the defendant by the plaintiff from his post as a teacher in Wilsons’ Hospital School pending final decision as to whether he should be dismissed for gross misconduct in accordance with his contract of employment was and is lawful

(4) The plaintiff do recover as against the defendant damages in the sum of €15,000 in respect of trespass by the plaintiff on premises at Wilson’s Hospital School in the possession or the control of the plaintiff…”

89. A number of things are clear from this judgment and order:

(1) first, Mr. Burke so misconducted himself in the proceedings before the court that he was found to be in contempt of court and was excluded from the courtroom. Despite this, he was given every opportunity to return to the hearing and participate in the hearing provided he accepted the rulings of the court. This, he pointedly refused to do. He was, therefore, free to come back into the hearing at any time he chose, but he chose not to do so;

(2) secondly, this was the full trial of the action and the perfect place for Mr. Burke to argue that the direction given by the school in relation to transgenderism was unlawful and/or unconstitutional and/or that any directive to compel him to use the pronoun “they/them” was a breach of his constitutional rights. However, because of his refusal to attend at the court, Mr. Burke refused to argue the point. As a result, his defence and counterclaim were dismissed;

(3) thirdly, the actions of the school were declared to be lawful in all respects;

(4) fourthly, Mr. Justice Owens granted a permanent injunction which ordered that “The defendant be restrained forthwith from entering or trespassing on premises at Wilson’s Hospital School in possession or control of the plaintiff without the consent of the plaintiff”;

(5) fifthly, even though this order was perfected on 23rd August, 2023, over two years and three months ago, Mr. Burke has failed to appeal that order. It is, therefore, a valid and subsisting order of the High Court and is enforceable.

(iv) The application to set aside Mr. Justice Owens’ Order before Mr Justice Sanfey

90. Not only did Mr Burke not appeal the order of Mr. Justice Owens, instead he decided to bring an application before the High Court (Sanfey J.) to set aside the judgment and order made by Owens J.. Mr. Justice Sanfey gave his decision in The Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School v. Enoch Burke [2024] IEHC and dismissed Mr. Burke’s application as an abuse of process.

91. Mr. Justice Sanfey stated at paragraph 49 of his decision: “The course of litigation is straightforward. The parties contest the trial; the party against whom adverse findings or orders have been made has – in almost all cases, and certainly in the present case – a right of appeal. Mr Burke has no reasonable or plausible explanation as to why he did not avail of this right. He comes to this Court seeking to have the judgment of Owens J set aside some thirteen months after it was delivered. There can be no doubt that counsel for the Board is correct in describing the present application as a proxy appeal; it is a belated substitute for a trial which Mr Burke chose not to contest in March 2023.”

92. At paragraphs 52 and 53, Mr Justice Sanfey also stated: “52. However, it is necessary to be clear about this. Owens J ordered that “the defendant be restrained forthwith from entering or trespassing on premises at Wilson's Hospital School in possession or control of the plaintiff without the consent of the plaintiff”. It is for repeated breach of this order, and for no other reason, that Mr Burke has been imprisoned.

53. Mr Burke thinks that the order is made in breach of his constitutional rights. However, it is a valid order of this Court, and Mr Burke will comply with it, or face the consequences. It is not open to Mr Burke to conclude unilaterally that the order of the court breaches his constitutional rights and is thus “void ab initio”, such that he does not have to comply with it. He does not get to pick and choose which order of the court directed to him that he will obey. He is being required to do no more than any other litigant – to obey the orders of the court. He has been imprisoned because he chooses not to obey the order of the court – the very same court which he now expects to come to his aid and uphold his allegations of breach of his constitutional rights, notwithstanding his refusal to contest the original trial or to appeal the judgment of the court.” (Emphasis added.)

(v) Mr. Burke’s submission

93. The motion before this court is a motion for attachment and committal because of Mr. Enoch Burke’s repeated breaches of orders of the High Court. Although Mr. Burke has been in repeated and flagrant breaches of various interlocutory orders made by the court, the order of the High Court which applies in this particular situation is the order of the High Court (Owens J.) dated 17th July, 2023.

94. Mr. Burke argued in his submissions that the judgment and order of Mr. Justice Owens was somehow rendered unlawful by the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in an entirely separate set of proceedings entitled Enoch Burke plaintiff/appellant v. Sean O’Longain, Kieran Christie and Jack Cleary defendant/respondent [2025] IECA 148. This was a judgment of the Court of Appeal consisting of Faherty J., Binchy J. and Butler J. The judgment of the court was delivered by Faherty J. on 25th July, 2025.

95. Mr. Burke in his replying affidavit of 3rd September, 2025 states at paragraph 17: “The Court of Appeal ruled that the principal’s ‘overarching complaint’ against me falls under the heading of ‘refusal to comply with a legitimate instruction resulting in serious consequences’, as provided for in the Circular (para. 146). The instruction in question is the principal’s instruction to address a 15 year old male student by a new name and the ‘they’ pronoun. The Court of Appeal further ruled that ‘indisputably’ the DAP must determine whether that instruction was legitimate (para. 139).”

96. At paragraph 18 Mr. Burke states: “The Order of Mr Justice Owens dated 17 July 2023 (issued on foot of his judgment dated 19 May 2023) enforcing my suspension, on the basis of which the within application for Attachment and Committal is made, has been seriously undermined by the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Christie.”

97. Mr. Burke states at paragraph 19 of his affidavit: “Mr Justice Owens upheld the lawfulness of my suspension without conducting any analysis of the legitimacy of the principal’s instruction. This action is manifestly flawed and invalid in light of the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Christie. It was not open to Mr Justice Owens to uphold the lawfulness of my suspension whilst turning a blind eye to the legitimacy of the principal’s instruction”.

98. At paragraph 20 Mr. Burke states: “This Court is bound to follow the jurisprudence of the Court of Appeal. The within application by the Plaintiff constitutes an invitation by the Plaintiff for this Court to continue down a particular path when a change of direction has been mandated by the Court of Appeal judgment in Christie”.

99. At paragraph 22 Mr. Burke states: “I say that the principal’s instruction has no basis in Irish law and is furthermore contrary to Article 44.2.1 of the Irish Constitution, which states:‘Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.’ The principal’s instruction is furthermore contrary to the ethos of the school. I have maintained this position since the beginning of these proceedings.”

Assessment of Mr. Burke’s legal submissions

100. Mr. Burke’s only defence to the attachment and committal motion was that because the Court of Appeal had stated that the overarching issue in the principal’s report was his opposition to transgenderism, it followed that Mr. Justice Owens’ order was now invalid. I do not accept this argument for a number of reasons.

101. First, the issue before the Court of Appeal in O’Longain was Mr. Burke’s application for the recusal of the second named defendant from sitting on the Disciplinary Appeal Panel on the grounds of objective bias. The Court of Appeal held that he had made out a case of objective bias and directed that Mr. Christie be replaced on the Disciplinary Appeal Panel. It was therefore, from first to last, a decision on objective bias.

102. Secondly, that case was an entirely separate set of proceedings instituted by Mr. Burke against the three named defendants; the school was not a party to those proceedings.

103. Thirdly, the Court of Appeal made trenchant comments critical of Mr. Burke’s ongoing contempt of court. At no stage did the Court of Appeal - either explicitly or implicitly – state that there was any infirmity in the order of the High Court (Owens J.) of 17th July, 2023. On the contrary, the Court of Appeal proceeded on the basis that that order was a valid order of the High Court, that Mr. Burke was in deliberate and ongoing breach of that order and that this raised the question as to whether he was entitled to the equitable relief sought.

104. Fourthly, the order of the High Court dated 17th July, 2023 is a valid order of the High Court. It has not been set aside by the High Court. Moreover Mr. Burke has singularly failed to appeal this decision of Owens J. to the Court of Appeal at all. Despite the fact that the order was made over two years ago, on 17th July, 2023, Mr. Burke has refused to appeal the order to the Court of Appeal as he had a right to do. When I repeatedly asked Mr. Burke why had he not appealed the matter to the Court of Appeal, he simply refused to answer the question.

105. Fifthly, this court is not a court of appeal from other judges of the High Court. This submission of Mr. Burke’s – that the Court of Appeal has somehow undermined the validity of the order of Owens J. – is an argument utterly without merit. It is yet again another attempt by Mr. Burke to set aside the order of Owens J. in some form of collateral attack or proxy appeal. This is not the correct procedure as Mr. Burke well knows. This is now his second bite at this cherry and both attempts are doomed to failure. If Mr. Burke wanted to appeal the order of Mr. Justice Owens he should have done so at the appropriate time.

106. Finally, the reason why Mr. Justice Owens did not deal with Mr. Burke’s challenge to the lawfulness or otherwise of the principal’s direction is because Mr. Burke didn’t even show up to argue his own case.

107. In summary, therefore, I would reject Mr. Burke’s submission as unstateable.

The Affidavit evidence of the school

108. I will now set out the extensive evidence on affidavits filed on behalf of the school. All of this evidence is uncontroverted (except in one respect which I set out below).

Affidavit of Christopher Woods 27th August, 2025

109. Mr. Woods in his grounding affidavit for the original motion stated that the Board felt it had no option to make this application stating. “I say and believe this decision was not taken lightly and it is with great regret and reluctance that the plaintiff Board is bringing this application”.

110. At paragraph 18 Mr. Woods states that the then acting principal Mr. Galligan in April 2025 “was very hopeful that the collection of fines would have resulted in the Defendant complying with the relevant Court Order but that that had not yet occurred”.

111. It appears that Mr. Burke re-attended at the school at the start of the new school year. Mr. Woods states at paragraph 19: “It was reported to me by Ms Siobhan Devaney (then Acting Deputy Principal) and Mr John Galligan (then Acting Principal) that the Defendant does on occasion interact with students – speaking to some on the corridor, he has also been seen posing with a student who was taking a “selfie” with him and two other students and signing year books. This is in my opinion wholly inappropriate where there is a Court Order that states he is not to be on the school premises”.

112. At paragraph 24 Mr. Woods states: “However, the Plaintiff Board can not countenance ignoring the blatant and ongoing contempt of the Defendant. Board members noted that the Defendant is a trespasser to the school, and should the Defendant do something while on the school premises that causes a health and safety risk and/or was otherwise inappropriate the school could possibly be held liable for not taking all available steps open to it to remove the Defendant. The Board members also noted the significant and ongoing disruption the Defendant’s behaviour causes and expressed concern on hearing that a student took a selfie with Mr Burke. The Board members expressed deep concern at the message that the Defendant is [saying] to the students which is that he considers it perfectly acceptable to ignore the Orders of this Honourable Court. Schools try to instil civil responsibility and civil obedience in their students – for the Board to fail to act in relation to the ongoing significant contempt on the part of the Defendant would be to set a poor example for students”. (sic). (Emphasis added).

The affidavit of Noel Cunningham 27th August, 2025

113. Mr. Noel Cunningham, the principal of the school swore an affidavit on the 27th August, 2025.

114. As he states at paragraph 5: “The new academic year commenced recently. On Thursday the 21st of August 2025 at approximately 9.25 am I observed the Defendant standing outside a locked door leading into Wilson’s Hospital School. I introduced myself and explained to the Defendant that he was in breach of a Court Order and I asked him to leave the school grounds. The Defendant responded stating, ‘I am here to work’. I repeated that I was asking him to leave the school grounds. The Defendant said, ‘You know why I am here’. At that point I ended the conversation and left.”

115. At paragraph 6 he states: “A staff meeting commenced in the school library shortly thereafter and as the meeting was about to start a member of staff entered and informed me that the Defendant had followed her into the school through the front entrance and was now standing at the end of the corridor just outside the Deputy Principal’s Office. At this point I went and spoke to the Defendant, and I told him that he did not have permission to be at the school, and I asked him to leave. The Defendant said ‘I am here to work’ and then started speaking about his religious beliefs. I asked a teacher to stand outside the door and supervise the Defendant. I understand that the Defendant walked down to the library and stood outside but did not try to enter. I am advised by that teacher that the Defendant said to him, ‘this is not the first time that you have stopped me doing my job’”.

116. At paragraph 8 he states: “On Friday the 22nd of August 2025, the first-year students returned to school at 9.00am. The Defendant arrived at approximately 10.30 am and entered the school building. He stood in an area in the school that is called ‘Croi na Scoile’ which is literally the heart of the school in that a number of corridors feed into the area, and it is a general-purpose hall area which contains some first-year lockers and toilets. We had arranged an induction activity for the first year students in Croi na Scoile, however, we had to move this activity outside because of his presence. Former students also attended at the school that day to collect a copy of their Leaving Certificate results and meet their former teachers between 11.00am and 12.00pm. The Defendant left the school at approximately 1.30pm.”

117. At paragraph 14 he states: “I am the new Principal of Wilson’s Hospital School. In the first few days of this academic year, I am already seeing the disruption to the normal running of the school that the Defendant’s behaviour is causing. We should not have to change the location of a first-year induction activity, and I should not have to ask a member of the teaching staff to supervise where and what the Defendant is doing and yet both of these things occurred last week….I am deeply concerned as Principal as to the impact the Defendant’s continued breach of the Order of Mr Justice Owens will have on the running of the school”

The affidavit of Christopher Woods on 10th October, 2025

118. Mr. Christopher Woods, the chairperson of the Board of Management of the school, swore an affidavit on 10th October, 2025. At paragraph 3 of his affidavit, he states as follows: “I say that since this matter was last before this Honourable Court I can confirm that Mr Burke has attend in the school building every school day since then. He continues to act in breach of the Order of this Honourable Court”. (sic).

119. He states at paragraph 4: “The Plaintiff Board brought these proceedings to seek the protection of the Courts to prevent Mr Burke trespass onto the school premises. The Plaintiff Board received the protection of this Honourable Court by way of the Orders which Mr Burke has continued to breach save when he has been imprisoned. Mr Burke seems to simply wish to disregard the rule of law when he does not like same.”

120. At paragraph 5 Mr. Woods states: “In light of last application before this Honourable Court the Board of Management, the Principal of the school and I in my capacity of Chairman of the Board considered once again the possibility of obtaining private security to prevent Mr Burke’s attendance at the school”.

121. At paragraph 6 he states: “It was extremely difficult to countenance engaging a security company. The Principal has sought quotes from a number of different security businesses. Some had no interest in considering the job. Some did provide quotations.” These are exhibited.

122. Again he states at paragraph 7 that “[t]he costs cannot be underestimated” and as a result he contacted the Department of Education and Youth seeking their assistance. He states at paragraph 9:

“The reality is that any money in the school accounts is earmarked for other things such as building. The Board met on 8 October 2025 and discussed all of these matters. It decided that it would proceed with engaging security as and from 13 October 2025 in the hope that the Department will provide financial assistance. If the school is not granted such support, I am of the view that the school will only be able to engage security on a short to medium term basis. I do not know even with Department help how long this will be sustainable and/or if it will work”.

The affidavit of Noel Cunningham sworn on 20th October, 2025

123. Mr. Noel Cunningham, the principal of the school, swore a further affidavit on 20th October, 2025. In this affidavit he states at paragraph 3: “I say and believe that Mr Burke has remained in breach of the Orders of this Honourable Court since Monday 13th of October which was the date that security commenced at the school”.

124. He refers to the security incident reports which have been compiled each day and he states at paragraph 4 that it is clear from the security reports that Mr. Burke continues to act in contempt of court and has no concern for the rule of law if he disagrees with it.

125. At paragraph 5 Mr. Cunningham states: “Mr Burke is not always physically driven onto the school premises sometimes he gets out of the car outside the premises and then walks onto the grounds.”

126. He also states that: “I can confirm that I believe that he is sometimes accompanied by family members but unfortunately, I am unable to verify the precise individual(s) that are with him on these occasions.”

127. At paragraph 6, he states that on Monday 13th October, 2025 An Garda Siochana were called but did not attend at the school. On Tuesday 14th October An Garda Siochana were called again and did attend at the school. They took statements from the security officer and then Mr. Burke and then spoke to Mr. Cunningham. They indicated however that they were “uncomfortable arresting Mr Burke because they were not sure that he was trespassing or that he had committed a crime”. It is clear therefore that the school has had to go to enormous lengths to deal with Mr. Burke’s trespasses on the school grounds.

128. At paragraph 8 Mr. Cunningham states: “There is one further disturbing element to what occurred last week. One of Mr Burke’s brothers (I do not know the name of this brother) recorded a video of Mr Burke and a security guard on the grounds of the school. This video was then posted on Mr Burke’s X (formerly known as ‘Twitter’) account. The security man did not give his permission for this. I beg to refer to a screen shot of Mr Burke’s X account showing that he posted the video upon which pinned together and marked with the letter ‘NC2’ I have signed my name prior to the swearing hereof”.

129. At paragraph 9 Mr. Cunningham states: “Under the video on X a significant number of people posted racist comments about the security officer. As a result, the security company have had to change the security guard posted at the school. The security company have also highlighted that the continued posting of these type of videos will cause difficulty in getting individuals willing to provide security at the school and could also result in an increase in the cost of the security service”.

130. Exhibited to Mr. Cunningham’s affidavit are security incident reports for each day that the security guard was present. The first of these is dated 13th October, 2025 and states: “Unauthorised entry and presence of Mr. Enoch Burke on school premises. At 8.40 – unauthorised vehicle entry: while standing at the main entrance gate, I saw Mr. Burke on a passenger seat in a Hyundai vehicle, registration 151-G-263. I attempted to stop the vehicle using a clear hand signal from right side of the main entrance gate. The driver did not stop and drove into the car park in front of the school reception.”

131. The security guard indicated that he immediately notified his security manager and the principal of these facts and a “joint effort was made by security and management to remove Mr. Burke from school. He was non-compliant and refused to follow the direct instructions given.” He states “to avoid causing a disturbance, especially as students began to enter the corridor, a decision was made to disengage from a forceful removal” . He states “throughout the day, I conducted frequent checks; Mr. Burke remained stationary in the same corridor location”. It was also stated “It was noted that an associate of Mr. Burke, who had also been removed from the premises, later retrieved the Hyundai vehicle and departed”.

132. The only matter in all the affidavits about which Mr. Burke takes issue is this. Mr. Burke in his replying affidavit of 22nd October, 2025 states at paragraph 5: “The security incident reports at exhibit ‘NC1’ of Mr. Cunningham’s affidavit are factually inaccurate in several respects”.

133. At paragraph 6 he states: “For example, on Monday 13 October 2025, I arrived at the school by car. I was not sitting in the passenger seat. I was driving the vehicle. The security guard did not make a clear hand signal to stop the vehicle. The security guard was not standing at the right side of the entrance gate. Nobody was removed from the premises. Assertions in the security incident report contrary to these facts are incorrect”.

134. What is notable about this averment from Mr. Burke is that he does not deny that he trespassed onto the school premises in the Hyundai. In fact he seems to proudly assert that he “was driving the vehicle”. Whether there was a security guard present or not, or whether the security guard tried to stop him, is not the issue. The issue is that Mr. Burke physically drove on to the premises on this day in this car when there was a court order against him to prevent him from trespassing on the school grounds.

135. The security incident report dated 14th October, 2025 states as follows: “8-38-unauthorised vehicle entry: I observed a Nissan Qashqai (registration 151WH832) enter the school grounds. The vehicle was driven by Mr. Enoch Burke and parked in the upper car park near the school entrance.”

136. The security guard said that he approached the vehicle which contained three occupants and instructed them via the driver’s window that they were trespassing and must leave immediately. He said that this instruction was ignored. He said Mr. Burke exited the vehicle and attempted to enter the school building. He attempted to block his entry at which point Mr. Burke became argumentative. He said “he and an associate then began recording video footage of me without my consent”. Subsequently the Garda Siochana were informed and members of An Garda Siochana arrived on site. Mr. Burke subsequently remained in the car park area for the duration of the day under the observation of the security guard. Video of this incident was posted online with Mr. Burke. Mr. Burke finally vacated the school premises at 15.48. The security report states: “The incident resulted in a significant security breach and the operational burden of monitoring an individual for an extended period. Furthermore, the unauthorized recording and subsequent online publication have caused considerable distress” to the security guard in question.

137. On 15th October, 2025 Mr. Burke again then entered the school premises in breach of the court order. He was asked to leave but he refused. When Mr. Burke was seen entering through the main entrance and walking to the school he was approached by the security guard and asked not to proceed. Mr. Burke demanded that he move aside and “he initially began recording a video of me, at which point I directly addressed the previous day’s event, stating he must stop recording as he had posted my video online without consent. He complied and ceased recording”.

138. On the morning of 16th October, 2025 the security report shows that Mr. Burke again entered the school premises in breach of the court order. He was instructed to leave but he refused. He stayed on site for approximately six hours before departing. Mr. Burke said to the security guard that he was to move aside and stop obstructing him and allow him to continue to his “workplace”.

139. On the morning of Friday 17th October, 2025 Mr. Burke again entered the school premises in breach of the court order. He was approached and instructed to leave but he refused to do so. Mr. Burke vacated the premises only at 15.56.

The affidavit of Christopher Woods on 28th October, 2025

140. Mr. Woods states at paragraph 3 of this affidavit after stating that he was newly appointed to the role and was unable to definitively name the individuals who had entered the school grounds with Mr. Burke he goes on to state at paragraph 3: “I am advised that there is a strong belief that prior to my appointment as Chairman of the school that the following members of the Burke family have entered on to the school premises without permission or the consent of the Plaintiff Board – Mr Burke’s parents Martina Burke and Sean Burke, his brother Isaac Burke and his sisters Jemima and Ammi Burke. In this regard I note that there is video footage of Mr Burke’s arrest on the school premises on 2nd September 2024 and it is clear from that footage that some of the aforementioned individuals were present with him on the school premises that day without the consent of the Plaintiff Board and/or its servants or agents. I beg to refer to a copy of the screen shots from the footage from Virgin Media News upon which was pinned together and marked with the letter ‘CW1’. I have signed my name prior to the swearing hereof.”

141. It is clear from all of the above that Mr. Burke is continuing to attend the school every day in flagrant contempt of the court orders not to trespass at the school grounds. It is also clear that this is posing a significant operational and security challenge both for the school and for the gardaí. It is also putting the school to significant expense on this issue. The Department of Education has apparently agreed to defray 50% of the cost so the tax payer is having to pay for the cost of security to ensure that Mr. Burke does not trespass onto school property or enter the school buildings. This is wholly unacceptable.

Affidavit of Noel Cunningham sworn on 28th October, 2025

142. In this affidavit Mr. Cunningham states as follows at paragraph 3: “I understand that Mr. Enoch Burke did not stop at the gate on Friday 24 October 2025 even though he was advised he was not allowed to enter past the gate by the security officer. I understand he eventually stopped halfway up the driveway, and he and the security officer spent the day in that location. Mr. Enoch Burke once again videoed his interaction with the security officer and posted same on X (formerly known as Twitter) and once again certain third parties posted racist comments under the video in relation to the security officer in question. I beg to refer to a screen shot of Mr. Burke’s video on his X page and some of the comments posted under it upon which pinned together and marked with the letters ‘NC2’ I have signed my name prior to the swearing hereof.”

Affidavit of Noel Cunningham of 7th November, 2025

143. Mr. Noel Cunningham the principal of the plaintiff school swore an affidavit on the 7th November, 2025 grounding the second application before the court. At paragraph 3 of this affidavit he says as follows: “Unfortunately, the school has had to engage a new security company (RFC Security) who commenced working at the school on 3 November 2025 because many of the previous company’s security officers were unwilling to work at the school due to the issue of online abuse. The only suitable security officer willing to do the work was coming from a considerable distance away and the security company were paying for overnight accomodation in a nearby hotel. This resulted in a significant increase in cost which would had to be passed on to the school were it to continue, and the school could not afford this.”

144. This is of course a lamentable state of affairs from the point of view of the school. It is a further signal of the immense damage which Mr. Enoch Burke is visiting on the school.

145. At paragraph 4 Mr. Cunningham states that “the new security company is costing more than the previous one – it is €25.50 per hour (plus VAT at 23%) for a 35.5 hour week.” This amounts to a sum of €905.25 plus VAT – an increase over the previous cost of the security firm which was €761 per week plus VAT.

146. Mr. Cunningham also exhibits the security reports for the 22nd and 23rd of October and also for the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th of November, 2025.

147. At paragraph 7 Mr. Cunningham states: “Mr. Burke continues to try and enter the school premises and has on occasion been successfully stopped from entering the grounds of the school and has remained outside the school gates as can be seen from the security reports. However, on the 5th of November the security officer was unable to prevent Mr. Burke getting past the gate and I had to become involved to stop him entering the actual school building. This interaction between myself and Mr. Burke was in the view of students which is to say the least far from ideal”.

148. He states at paragraph 9: “I say and believe that the daily disruption being caused by Mr. Burke is extremely difficult to deal with. I am spending far too much time dealing with the consequences of Mr. Burke’s continued contempt of Court and this is of course negatively impacting on the school and the students. As Principal I should be concentrating on the teachers and the students and educational matters – not Mr. Burke.” (Emphasis added)

149. He also confirms that Mr. Burke failed to pay the plaintiff the sum of €15,000 as directed by Mr. Justice Owens.

150. I have also reviewed the security reports exhibited to Mr. Cunningham’s affidavit for 22nd October, 23rd October, 3rd November, 4th November, 5th November, 6th November, 2025. On each occasion Mr. Burke entered the school premises without authorisation and was instructed to leave which he refused to do. On 23rd October, 2025 Mr. Burke again trespassed onto the plaintiff’s property and it appears that he remained on the school property from

10.40 am until 15.50 pm.

151. On 3rd November, 2025 Mr. Burke arrived and attempted to access the premises through the rear entrance. It appears that Mr. Burke remained on the property from 10 am until 16.45 pm.

152. On 4th November, 2025 it appears that Mr. Burke arrived at the school gates at 10.30 am and remained seated in front of the school entrance throughout the day until he left at 4pm.

153. On 5th November, 2025 Mr. Burke entered the school during the morning at approximately 10 am and remained in front of the entrance until 12.15 pm. At 12.45 pm Mr. Burke returned, this time driving a silver Toyota. The report states: “He was seen driving uphill within the school grounds but did not approach any entrances or visible areas of the main building. He may have parked behind the last school building though he was not observed returning to the school area afterward.”

154. On 6th November, 2025 Mr. Burke arrived at the school entrance at 10 am and remained seated outside the school entrance for the rest of the day until 3pm.

Assessment of the issues

(i) The position of the school

155. Ms. Mallon BL for the school submitted that “the school just wants to be a school”. This is a poignant and powerful submission. I have no doubt that Mr. Burke’s actions have caused a crisis among the pupils of the school, the teachers and the Board of Management. Instead of concentrating on the noble task of educating the young people of tomorrow, they are having to deal with Mr. Burke and his antics.

156. Far too much attention has been focused on Mr. Burke and not enough on the children and teachers of the school. The principal and teachers at the school are all doing their best to nurture, protect and educate the young pupils entrusted to their care. They wish to educate them in a calm and peaceful environment, not only in the usual subjects of the school curriculum but also in a set of values which includes respect for each other and civic responsibility.

157. However, Mr. Burke’s trespassing on the school grounds undermines all their work. The school is actually paying for security guards solely and exclusively to keep Mr. Burke out. He would rather have the school pay money to hire security guards at a rate of €1,000 per week to keep him out of the school rather than that the school would spend €1,000 per week on the needs of the pupils. This then is the grotesque behaviour of a teacher who puts his own ridiculous sense of himself above the needs of his pupils. It is clear that Mr. Burke is willing to sacrifice the pupils of the school on the altar of his fanatical campaign against transgenderism.

158. There is something deeply unsettling about Mr. Burke’s presence at the school. He doesn’t just trespass onto the school grounds; he goes right into the heart of the school, roaming around its corridors when he has no right to do so. He is a baleful and malign presence, an intruder, stalking the school, its teachers and its pupils. But this is a deliberate strategy of Mr. Burke: a strategy of confrontation. Confront the principal; confront the bishop; confront the school; confront the security guards; confront the courts. His verbal aggression in the school was one of the reasons for his dismissal for gross misconduct. His verbal aggression in court was also criticised by Whelan J. in the Court of Appeal. His verbal aggression towards this court, was, in my experience, unprecedented.

159. Perhaps Mr. Burke uses comments such as “wipe that smirk off your face” in his interactions with his family at home. Perhaps he even uses such expressions with his students. But to use such an expression to a Judge of the High Court is not normal behaviour. It shows that Mr. Burke has an unbridled tongue and clearly has difficulty in regulating his anger. He could say anything, at any time, to a teacher or pupil and spark an incident.

160. This level of verbal aggression, unregulated anger and lack of self-control, combined with his deliberate strategy of confrontation, make him a potential danger to pupils and teachers of the school – as they have indicated in their affidavits,

(ii) Contempt of Court

161. I enquired of Mr. Burke at the third hearing whether he would purge his contempt, even at this late stage. In response, Mr. Burke replied that that was a “fantastical” question given his submission. It is clear therefore that Mr. Burke has no intention of purging his contempt.

162. Mr. Burke therefore presents himself to the court as an utterly intransigent litigant who is so blinkered in his approach to all issues that he believes that only he is right and that everybody else is wrong. In his view, every single judge of the High Court and of the Court of Appeal who has dealt with this case are all in the wrong. He seems unwilling to acknowledge the simple distinction between issues of transgenderism (to which he says he has religious objections) and issues in relation to court orders.

163. It is not only that Mr. Burke has committed a contempt of court; it is also clear that he is contemptuous of all judges and, indeed, of court processes. He has no hesitation in calling his opponents and judges liars at every opportunity. This is not normal behaviour.

164. It is now clear that Mr. Burke, and the members of the Burke family named in this judgment, are intent upon a campaign of disruption of court proceedings on each and every occasion on which they appear before the court. This goes way beyond the issue of transgenderism; it is now clearly a campaign to undermine the proper functioning of the courts. The courts cannot, and will not, tolerate this level of abusive behaviour. Litigants such as Mr. Burke, or indeed members of his family, have absolutely no right to engage in the verbal abuse of a judge who is bound to administer justice impartially in a court of law. It is also clear that the actions of Mr. Burke and members of his family are concerted, organised, and systematic. They occur in hearing after hearing. They are also concerted in that various members of the Burke family appear to take it in turns to shout at the judge and hurl verbal abuse at him.

165. It is an astonishing fact to recount that on each and every occasion that Mr. Burke is before the courts, gardaí have to be notified and have to be in court to protect members of the judiciary and/or registrars against outbursts from members of the Burke family and to ensure that court hearings can proceed.

(iii) The Rule of Law

166. We live in a constitutional democracy, and the Rule of Law is foundational to the proper functioning of such a democracy. There are very significant challenges to the rule of law, at this time, in this and other jurisdictions, and the courts must be vigilant to ensure the upholding of the rule of law as best they can.

167. Mr. Burke and all members of his family are bound by the Rule of Law just as every citizen in this society is, just as High Court judges are, just as the Chief Justice is, just as the President and Taoiseach are. Everyone is bound by this Rule of Law. Enoch Burke is no exception to this. He will obey the court order or face the consequences.

168. Where, as here, there is a clash of constitutional rights, it is the role of impartial courts and impartial judges to adjudicate on these clashes. But Mr. Burke will not accept this. You either accept what he says or you will suffer the consequences.

169. In Ross Company Ltd (In Receivership) v. Patrick Swan (unrep, High Court 19th May, 1981) O’Hanlon J. stated as follows: “The Court before which the Defendants find themselves is the High Court of the people of Ireland, set up to administer justice fairly between all sections of the community. The laws which the Court enforces are not laws made by the Judges, but laws freely and democratically adopted and enacted by the people of Ireland. When the Court makes an order and that order is wilfully disobeyed by some person or group of persons, an injury is done and an act of contempt is committed not merely against the Court but against the community as a whole, and the rule of law is undermined to that extent by the person or persons who set themselves up in defiance of the community and its institutions.” Tomorrow it may be their turn to come to the High Court seeking justice, and if the authority of the Court is eroded by systematic disregard of its orders, it may in the process become powerless to help them when they need its assistance.”

170. Consider the slow, gradual erosion of the school’s rights in this case. First, Mr. Burke trespasses every day on the school; then his brothers feel that they too can trespass with him and take videos; then they feel that they can upload these videos taken whilst they were trespassing onto school property; then his father feels he can drive his son into the school and also trespass onto school property. Then different members of the Burke family feel they can trample all over the property of the school. All the while protesting about transgenderism, as if that somehow justifies their actions, which it most decidedly does not.

171. One wonders how would Mr. Burke, and other members of the Burke family, respond if a group of people trespassed on their family home and garden and refused to leave when asked. He would undoubtedly seek the protection of the courts. And how would he respond if those same protestors refused to obey court orders restraining their trespass. He would then seek orders for their attachment and committal. And if the court refused to imprison those protesters, how would he feel if they remained camped in his house and garden - going into the heart of his house, making themselves at home in the kitchen and living room, pretending that they had a legal right to be there – all because they wanted to protest in favour of transgenderism. This is how the Rule of Law breaks down and a vicious cycle begins.

172. This court has, in other cases, had the difficult task of committing persons to prison for breach of court orders. In some of these cases, they have been persons who, perhaps through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times and are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. The lending institution then obtains an order for possession; the person breaks back into the house; they are then in law a trespasser; the lending institution obtains an injunction to prevent a trespass, the person refuses to leave and is then committed to prison for breach of a court order. I have considerable sympathy for such people but, even in those hard and difficult cases, the rule of law must be maintained. It is also notable that in not one of those cases have any of the defendants engaged in verbal abuse or insults directed at the Bench. Mr. Burke and other members of the Burke family are not trespassing because they have been evicted from their home. They are trespassing as a form of political protest to draw attention to their campaign against transgenderism. They have a right to protest as they wish about transgenderism but they have no right to breach court orders.

173. Moreover, Mr. Burke has no hesitation in issuing proceedings to vindicate his rights – as he did in suing newspapers for defamation and suing the Disciplinary Appeals Panel for objective bias but he will not abide by court decisions which go against him. This is an indefensible and unacceptable position.

Preamble to the Constitution

174. This court will not yield to Mr. Burke or other members of the Buke family because of their invocation of God and scripture. It is important to re-state that the Irish Constitution states in the Preamble: “In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, … And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.”

175. Moreover every judge appointed under the Constitution takes an oath. Article 34.5.1 provides that: “Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution shall make and subscribe the following declaration: ‘In the presence of Almighty God, I ….. do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me.’”

176. It is important to emphasise this because Mr. Burke, and the other members of the Burke family, present throughout these applications, appear to suggest that somehow they have a greater moral right or greater moral authority than the courts to assert their rights, or that they have a God-given right to do what they do. This is simply not true, either as a matter of law, or as a matter of political and constitutional theory. This court will not take any lessons in religion from Mr. Burke or any of the Burke family.

177. Neither Mr. Burke nor any other members of his family have any monopoly on Christian values or on the Bible. Perhaps Mr. Burke should spend more time reflecting on Jesus’s words in the Sermon on the Mount: Do onto others as you would have them do onto you (Luke 6.31). He could also usefully ponder the words of Jesus - “Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar’s and onto God the things that are God’s” (Mathew 22.15-22) which are generally interpreted to mean that Christians should obey the civil laws of their state.

Mr. Burke’s mendacious campaign

178. In Mr. Cunningham’s affidavit of 20th October 2025, Mr. Cunningham referred (at para 8) to a video recorded by Mr. Burke and one of his brothers on the school premises. It was posted on 14th October 2025 on X. It is a recording of Mr. Burke actually trespassing on school grounds. In the video, a security guard can be seen politely telling Mr. Burke that he cannot enter the school and that he has no right to be there. Mr. Burke is seen remonstrating with the security guard and saying “I have a right to be here… I’m not trespassing… I am entitled to be here.”

179. It is clear that these words of Mr. Burke are a blatant lie. He has no right to be on the school property. No right at all. He has no more right to be on the school grounds than he has to rob money from a bank. But Mr. Burke clearly felt no compunction in lying to the security man to try to gain access to the school.

180. Secondly, at paragraph 23 of his affidavit of 3rd September, 2025, Mr. Burke states as follows: “I reject any assertion that I have caused disruption at the school. I have at all times conducted myself in a reasonable and respectful manner in my conduct at the school and in my interactions with those present at the school.”

181. It is difficult to know what to make of this averment - except to state in the clearest terms that it is another complete lie. There is nothing reasonable or respectful about Mr. Burke’s conduct at the school. However, it is not only a blatant lie, it is an extraordinary denial of the reality of the position. Mr. Burke is entitled to his religious beliefs but he is not entitled to his own reality or to pretend that black is white.

182. Thirdly, in his submissions to the court on 29th October 2025, Mr. Burke stated: “And I would say my family do not go around trespassing on private property . They are good, upright, hardworking citizens”. Again, this is clearly another blatant lie, based on the evidence before this court.

183. Fourthly, Mr. Burke has engaged in a deliberately mendacious campaign full of misinformation and disinformation. He has mendaciously claimed, repeatedly, that he has been jailed because of his opposition to transgenderism. That is completely false. He has been jailed because he has breached court orders directing him not to trespass on school property.

184. This is the context in which Mr. Burke – without justification – accuses counsel and judges of lying. He does so to deflect and distract from his own lies. It is another element of his strategy of confrontation, verbal aggression and bullying. He accuses Ms. Mallon BL of lying when her professional conduct has been unimpeachable.

Sanctions for such contempt

185. It is clear that the imposition of fines on Mr. Burke has failed to stop him from breaching the orders of the court. He has disobeyed this court order as he has disobeyed all other court orders. He has not paid a euro of the figures voluntarily. It therefore serves no useful purpose to continue to impose further fines on him.

186. It is also clear that the appointment of security guards has failed to deter him from breaching court orders and entering the school premises. He is confronting the school guards on a daily basis. He is recording his interactions with them and posting them on X. He is constantly waiting for an opportunity to enter the school if a security guard is not present. He has driven a number of cars onto the school grounds ignoring the security guards.

187. Mr. Burke has repeatedly been given his liberty by the courts and he has repeatedly abused that freedom by trespassing on the school premises.

188. There is now, in my view, no longer any option left to enforce the order of the court, other than to imprison Mr. Burke again for contempt of court for repeated and flagrant breaches of the court order. I will therefore order his immediate committal to prison. Mr. Burke will remain in prison until a review date is set by this court. Mr. Burke however has the keys to his own prison and, if he wishes to purge his contempt, then he can be released.

Invoking of contempt in the face of the court jurisdiction

189. I also intend to invoke the criminal contempt of court jurisdiction in this case and I will ask the Attorney General to consider bringing proceedings for contempt of court against Dr. Isaac Burke, Mrs. Martina Burke, Ms. Ammi Burke and Mr. Enoch Burke.

Conclusion

(1) Mr. Enoch Burke is clearly in deliberate and persistent contempt of the High Court Order of 17th July 2023 (perfected on 23rd August 2023) in trespassing on the plaintiff’s property since 21st August 2025 to date;

(2) this court will therefore make a committal order against Mr. Enoch Burke to take effect immediately;

(3) there is a prima facie case that Dr. Isaac Burke, Mrs. Martina Burke, Ms. Ammi Burke, and Mr. Enoch Burke, have all committed a form of criminal contempt of court known as contempt in the face of the court. I will therefore now send this matter to the President of the High Court and request the Attorney General to consider preparing the appropriate application to the President of the High Court in respect of these matters;

(4) I will defer consideration of all other matters until a second judgment which I will deliver next week.