High Court dismisses application to strike out judgment paragraphs, citing abuse of process and refusal to obey orders.

THE HIGH COURT

[2025] IEHC 711

[2022/4507P]

BETWEEN

THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF WILSON’S HOSPITAL SCHOOL

PLAINTIFF

AND

ENOCH BURKE

DEFENDANT

Judgment (No. 3) of Mr. Justice Cregan delivered on 9th day of December, 2025

Introduction

1. On 28th November, 2025, Mr. Burke wrote a letter to the Registrar of the High Court complaining of certain matters in my judgment of 18th November, 2025 and applying to have certain paragraphs in my judgment struck out. Mr. Burke also made submissions on this issue to the court on Wednesday, 3rd December, 2025. This judgment deals with that letter and that application. Mr. Burke’s letter of 28th November, 2025.

2. In his letter Mr. Burke states that he is “gravely concerned at several factual errors in the judgment”. He referred, in particular, to paragraphs 158 and 160 of my judgment and his application was (1) that paragraphs 158 and 160 be deleted from the judgment and (2) that certain averments by Mr. Cunningham, the current principal of the school, be formally recited in the judgment.

The legal principles applicable in such applications.

3. In Nash v. DPP [2017] IESC 51, Clarke J. stated as follows (at paragraph 2.4 of his

decision): “If there truly are errors of fact in a judgment then a judge should, of course, be willing to correct them so that the record can be set straight. However it does need to be said that this undoubted jurisdiction should only be exercised where the error is of some materiality, either to the case, or to the legitimate interest of any person who may either be a party to the case or whose actions may be described in the judgment.”

4. For the reasons set out in this judgment, I am of the view that there were no errors of fact in my judgment and therefore I do not propose to amend it. Likewise, I do not intend to add more affidavit evidence to it. Should the court even consider this application?

5. The first question I have to ask is whether I should even entertain this application by Mr. Burke. Mr. Burke has repeatedly refused to obey court orders which have enjoined him not to trespass on the school’s property. Mr. Burke seems to think that he can come to court on a regular basis and seek relief from the courts whilst, at the same time, refusing to obey court orders. This is entirely unacceptable.

6. Indeed, it is tempting to reject the application in its entirety at the start without even engaging in the merits of the application.

7. However, I have decided, given the nature of this application, that I will consider it.

The paragraphs complained of

8. The paragraphs complained of by Mr. Burke are set out on page 41 of a 50 page judgment. In order to understand the context, I set out below paras 155-160 of my judgment.

“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,”

Paragraph 158

9. Mr. Burke’s first complaint is in respect of paragraph 158.

Baleful

10. Mr. Burke complains about my use of the words “baleful” and “malign”; he also complains about my use of the words “roaming” and “stalking”. I will deal with each of these in turn.

11. Mr. Burke in his letter says “the word ‘baleful’ means “threatening harm; menacing.”. He obtained this meaning from some sort of Google search. This search only gave one meaning of the word. He subsequently handed in an extract from what he said was a “Little Oxford English Dictionary” which also only gave one meaning of the word. However, the authoritative source for the meaning of words is the 20 volume Oxford English Dictionary (“OED”) which has numerous definitions, descriptions, and usages of the word.

12. Among the definitions of the word “baleful” in the Oxford English Dictionary is: “1. Full of malign, deadly or noxious influence; pernicious, destructive, noxious, injurious, mischievous, malignant”.

13. It is clear, in my view, that Mr. Burke’s presence at the school is, from the point of view of the pupils, teachers and school, and, viewed objectively, pernicious, destructive, injurious and malignant.

14. The adverb “balefully” is defined in the OED as “in a baleful manner; injuriously, hurtfully”. Again, the word, “baleful”, as meaning “injurious” or “hurtful” is clearly applicable to Mr. Burke’s behaviour towards the school in this case.

15. As a matter of fact, the meaning of “baleful” in Mr. Burke’s google search - as “threatening harm; menacing”- does not appear in the 20 volume OED definition of the word. But even if it did, it is a word which is, on that definition, also applicable to Mr. Burke. His daily trespassing on the school does cause harm to the school, as is clear from the affidavit evidence. Every day he is there causes harm to the school. “Malign”

16. A second word Mr. Burke takes issue with, is the word “malign”. Mr. Burke states in his letter that “the word malign means ‘evil in nature or effect’”. Again, Mr. Burke relied on some inadequate Google search for his definition.

17. One of the meanings of “malign” in the Oxford English Dictionary, (when referring to “persons and their dispositions”) is: “characterised by ill will;” “malignant” and “malevolent.” There is no doubt that Mr. Burke bears a grudge against the school because it has dismissed him for gross misconduct. He clearly has ill will towards the school.

18. The word “malign”, when used as a noun, means “baleful, gravely injurious”. Another meaning of “malign” is “having a baleful influence or effect”. It is clear therefore, that, in some respects, the word “malign” is related to the word “baleful” and in certain respects could be a synonym for it.

19. When used as a verb - as in “to malign” - it means “to plot; to contrive against”. The adjective “malignant”, (related to “malign”), is derived from the Latin verb “malignare” which means “to do mischief, to injure maliciously.”

20. There can be no doubt that Mr. Burke trespasses on to the school “to do mischief, to injure maliciously”. There is also no doubt that Mr. Burke is plotting and contriving against the school. He is fully aware that the school doesn’t want him there. It is also clear that his actions are gravely injurious to the school.

21. Most, if not all, of these meanings of the words “baleful” and “malign” apply to Mr. Burke’s ongoing trespassing and unlawful presence at the school. I chose these words carefully; they seem to me to be entirely apposite. There is no error of fact. I will not be removing these words. Roaming and stalking.

22. Mr. Burke also objects to my statement that he was “roaming around its corridors”. In fact, the full sentence I wrote was: “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.”

23. It is unquestionably the case that Mr. Burke is trespassing on the school grounds. It is also unquestionably the case that Mr. Burke is going right into the heart of the school. He has no right to be there yet he feels completely free to wander through the school, through its corridors, wherever and whenever he wishes against the wishes of the school. Therefore, to any extent that he is wandering unlawfully through the corridors, he is “roaming” the corridors without any liberty to do so. I stand over the use of the word “roaming”; it was entirely accurate. There is no error of fact.

24. Mr. Burke also complains of my use of the word “stalking” and states: “Stalking is a serious criminal offence in Ireland under the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act, 2023, with a maximum sentence of up to ten years. It is a matter of the utmost gravity that such a finding would be made by a High Court judge without a shred of evidence to back it up. It is an abuse of power and an assassination of character”.

25. That is a submission without merit. The word “stalking” has been in use for hundreds of years before the 2023 Act, as an ordinary English word. It was used by me in that context. It was not used by me in the context of the Act.

26. The word “stalking” has a number of meanings, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. It states (at meaning 4 (c)) that it is “often said of ghosts, and, figuratively, of quasi-personified maleficent agencies, as pestilence, famine, etc”. It is clear that I was using the word figuratively, to capture the essence of the troubling spirit which is Mr. Burke’s presence in the school. In my view, “stalking” can be used to describe a persistent action causing anxiety or apprehension in others. Mr. Burke’s daily trespassing into the heart of the school clearly causes anxiety and apprehension among pupils and teachers. The principal and board of management of the school do not want Mr. Burke to be on the school premises; they don’t want him to be a teacher in the school because he has been dismissed for gross misconduct; in fact they would rather that he be in jail than be at the school. Yet Mr. Burke continues to disobey court orders, trespassing onto the school. I chose the word “stalking” deliberately to characterise Mr. Burke’s actions. There is no error of fact.

Paragraph 160

27. Mr. Burke’s second complaint is in relation to paragraph 160.

28. Mr. Burke submitted that: “The finding at paragraph 160 above that pupils and teachers of the school ‘have indicated in their affidavits’ that I am a potential to danger to them is false. No pupil or teacher of the school has ever sworn an affidavit in these proceedings regarding me or my conduct”.

29. That is entirely wrong. Mr. Wood, chairman of the board of management, stated in his affidavit that “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.” That is why I stated that Mr. Burke was a “potential” danger to pupils and teachers of the school. I stand by my original judgment. There was no factual error.

30. Mr. Burke sought to argue that I could not make the statement because no pupils or teachers have sworn such affidavits. This again is a point without substance. The principal of the school and the chairman of the board of management are the relevant parties to swear such affidavits and they have done so.

31. Mr. Burke seeks to argue that he has treated all members of the school community “with courtesy and respect”. This, of course, is nonsense. He has treated the school and its community with the grossest disrespect. He has not respected their wish that he stay away from the school, just as he has not respected the court order that he stay away.

32. Moreover, I do not intend to add further affidavit evidence from Mr. Cunningham into my judgment. The paragraph which Mr. Burke requests me to add back in is one in which Mr. Cunningham says that Mr. Burke has not threatened or engaged in physical violence. But Mr. Burke does not get any credit for not engaging in physical violence; that is the very least one would expect from a teacher.

33. As I set out at paragraph 78 in my first judgment, Whelan J., in the Court of Appeal in Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School v. Enoch Burke [2023] IECA 52 stated at paragraph 22 of her judgment: “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. ….. 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.”

34. At paragraph 25, she stated: “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.”

35. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Burke’s presence in the school, in breach of the court order, with his verbal aggression, unregulated anger and lack of self-control, combined with his deliberate strategy of confrontation, makes him a potential danger to pupils and/or teachers of the school. There is no error of fact. This paragraph will not be removed.

Other arguments.

36. Mr. Burke submitted that my statements in paragraph 158 amounted to character assassination. Character is revealed by both actions and words. This then, is Mr. Burke from a review of his actions and words: a teacher who verbally berates a bishop during a religious service; a teacher who berates the principal after the school service, in front of pupils, teachers, and parents; a teacher who has been dismissed for gross misconduct; a man who trespasses upon school property when the school does not want him there; a man who breaches court orders directing him not to trespass on school property; a teacher who would rather that the school pay money for security guards to keep him out rather than pay €1,000 a week on the needs of its pupils; a man who is prepared to sacrifice the pupils of the school for his cause; a man who prefers a strategy of confrontation rather than one of dialogue and compromise; a man who exhibits an abnormal degree of verbal aggression and disrespect; a man who lacks insight into the inappropriateness of his behaviour; a man who verbally abuses all judges before whom he appears; a man who lies on affidavit, a man who lies to security guards, and a man who lies on every social media post which he puts up online about the reasons why he is prison. Mr. Burke has assassinated his own character by his deeds and words. I have simply described what the evidence has shown.

37. The allegation that my judgment was an abuse of power is equally ridiculous. I was exercising the normal functions of a judge, giving a written judgment in a matter which has taken up quite an extraordinary amount of court time. Contempt of court.

38. Mr Burke has been committed to prison for ongoing and flagrant breaches of a court order. There is no reason why he should be released every few months to take a holiday from Mountjoy Prison. No other person who is committed to prison for breach of a court order is afforded a similar privilege. When viewed in this light, it is clear that, in fact, Mr Burke has been afforded special privileges by the court, when these privileges have neither been warranted nor earned. No doubt, judges of the High Court thought that he might reflect on his actions over these holidays and not return to school. But Mr. Burke abused this freedom by continuing to trespass.

39. It is not relevant that the school is not sitting during the Christmas Holidays. What is relevant is that Mr Burke should remain in prison for contempt of court until he purges his contempt. He can be released at any time once he purges his contempt and agrees not to trespass on the property of the school.

40. I am also of the view that the school should not have to await with fear and trepidation, over the Christmas holiday, to see whether Mr Burke intends to trespass on the school on the first day of the new term, if Mr. Burke were released. That is very disconcerting for the school. The school should be allowed to prepare for the new term starting in January in the sure and confident knowledge that Mr Burke will not be appearing at the school.

41. I should however make it clear that another way in which Mr. Burke can be released from prison is – just as in all cases – when the underlying dispute between the parties effectively comes to an end. The idea that Mr. Burke is to be imprisoned for life, as some would have it, is nonsense.

42. Thus, if the Disciplinary Appeal Panel decides that Mr. Burke was not properly dismissed for gross misconduct, then Mr. Burke will be restored to his position at the school. He will then cease to be a trespasser as he will have a right to be at the school.

43. If, on the other hand, Mr. Burke loses his appeal to the Disciplinary Appeal Panel, then his dismissal for gross misconduct is confirmed. In that case, Mr. Burke’s self-created legal fiction that he can turn up for work every day because he is still employed by the school will (one hopes) come to an end.

44. It is therefore vital that the Disciplinary Appeals Panel makes its decision as quickly as possible in order to try and bring this dispute to an end. The assault on truth.

45. One of the most disturbing aspects about this case is the amount of lies being told by Mr. Burke about this matter.

46. The discovery of the truth is the bedrock of what courts are engaged in – day after day, case after case. In each case, the court asks what are the facts, what is the truth? There are complex rules for the admission of evidence and the questioning of witnesses. All of these are designed to try to ensure a fair process in order to ascertain the truth of any given dispute. A witness takes an oath, usually on a bible, and swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

47. When a court imprisons a person for contempt of court, it sets out clearly the reasons why a person is being imprisoned. In this case, Mr. Burke is in breach of a valid court order not to trespass on school property. He has repeatedly breached that order and he has repeatedly been committed to prison for breach of this order. It is for the courts to set out the reasons why someone is in prison. It is not open to Mr. Burke to state falsely why he is in prison and to pretend that he is in prison for a different reason.

48. Yet in statement after statement to this court, and elsewhere, Mr. Burke says that he is in prison because of his opposition to transgender rights. He knows these statements are lies. Yet he continues to make them.

49. Mr. Burke seems to be trying to inhabit a reality of his own, with his own “Alice in Wonderland” language, where words mean what he says they mean, where his lies are the truth, and everything everyone else says are lies. This court is concerned with what are, objectively speaking, the facts and truth of the situation.

Rule of Law.

50. There may well be good arguments as to why teachers should not be compelled to call pupils by the pronouns “they/them”; there may also be good reasons as to why they should. This case raises important questions about freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. The courts exist precisely to deal with these clashes of constitutional rights so that they are resolved through the legal process, and not through violence. However, in order that this clash of constitutional rights is considered by impartial courts, it is necessary that the Rule of Law is maintained and that court orders are obeyed.

51. The Rule of Law applies to everyone and exists for the benefit of everyone. It has been hard-fought for over the centuries – from Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights to Irish independence and the 1937 Constitution. The Irish people have decided that they want their society to be governed by the Rule of Law, and persons, like Mr. Burke, who constantly disobey court orders, will not be allowed to undermine that.

52. The Rule of Law in this case is the court order that Mr. Burke stop trespassing on school property. Mr Burke is not in prison because of his principled opposition to transgenderism. Mr Burke is in prison because of his unprincipled trespassing on the school’s property. He can protest to his heart’s content every single day outside the school gates – just not inside them, in breach of a court order.

53. This case is exceptional. And why is it exceptional? Because Mr. Burke has made a calculation that it brings him notoriety and his fifteen minutes of fame. It could also be because he and his family wish to make money from this campaign. I note in this regard that Mr. Burke has refused to comply with a number of court orders directing him to furnish an affidavit of income and expenditure. It is clear that he has something to hide in this regard.

54. I would have thought that Mr. Burke as a teacher of History would have known about the importance of truth and the importance of the Rule of Law in a liberal democracy. Both are fragile; both are essential. But Mr. Burke is not concerned with the truth or the Rule of Law. Abuse of process.

55. When I first heard this matter, I assumed that Mr. Burke was engaged in a bona fide defence of a legal case. The more this case has gone on, the more I have come to realise that Mr. Burke is not interested in defending this legal case at all. He (and other members of his family) have sought to disrupt and undermine every hearing at which they have attended; they have engaged in repeated verbal abuse of whatever judge is hearing that particular application; he has refused repeatedly to accept court rulings; he (and members of his family) have been dragged kicking and screaming from the Court of Appeal, preventing the court from delivering its judgment and resulting in a criminal conviction of Mr. Sean Burke for assaulting a female garda officer. He is using the courts to pursue his political campaign against transgenderism. He is perfectly entitled to fight that campaign in the public and political arena; the courts however are not the appropriate place to do so. Mr. Burke’s conduct of this case is simply an abuse of process.

Conclusion.

56. I want to repeat what I said in my first judgment: Mr. Burke is in prison because he has breached a court order not to trespass on school property. He is not in prison because of his views on transgenderism, which he is fully entitled to have.

57. Again, I would like to make it crystal clear to Mr. Burke what he must do to purge his contempt and to be released from prison.

58. He must give an undertaking to the court that he will not enter on, or trespass on, the school’s property again, without the school’s consent. That is all. (The issue of outstanding fines will however remain.)

59. He does not have to give any undertaking that he will follow the school principal’s direction to call a child “they” or “them”. He does not have to accept transgenderism. He does not have to stop protesting against transgenderism. He does not have to change his religious beliefs one iota.

60. The idea that Mr. Burke is being imprisoned because of his religious beliefs is nonsense. This court does not imprison people for their religious beliefs. Mr. Burke is being imprisoned because he is trespassing on other people’s property. No more. No less.

61. Any statements by Mr. Burke (or other members of his family) that he is being imprisoned because of his opposition to transgenderism are lies.

62. As I said in my first judgment, Mr. Burke has the keys to his own prison. He only has to give an undertaking that he will obey court orders – like every other citizen in the country.

63. In conclusion, I am satisfied that there are no factual errors in the judgment. I am also satisfied that the terms I used were entirely appropriate to describe Mr. Burke’s conduct and behaviour. His application is refused.