High Court re-commits defendant to prison for repeated trespass and contempt of court despite pending appeal.

THE HIGH COURT

[2026] IEHC 31

[2022/4507P]

BETWEEN

THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF WILSON’S HOSPITAL SCHOOL

PLAINTIFF

AND

ENOCH BURKE

DEFENDANT

Judgment (No. 4) of Mr. Justice Cregan delivered on 20th January 2026

Introduction

1. This is the fourth judgment I have delivered in this case. The application before the court is another application by the school for the attachment and committal of Mr. Burke for breach of a court order directing him not to trespass on school property. The application is grounded on the affidavits of Noel Cunningham, the principal of the school, and an affidavit of Ms. Shiels, the solicitor for the plaintiff.

2. When this matter was last before the court on 17th December 2025, I was informed that the Disciplinary Appeal Panel (“DAP”) had met on Saturday, 13th December 2025 and that a decision was expected by 9th January 2026.

3. As Mr. Burke was in prison on foot of a previous order for committal, I listed the matter to be heard again before me in the first week of term, on Wednesday, 14th January 2025.

Reasons for Mr. Burke’s release on 14th January 2026

4. The DAP had its hearing on 13th December 2025. Over three weeks later, on Tuesday, 6th January 2026, Mr. Burke belatedly issued a new set of proceedings against the DAP and brought an ex parte application for an injunction before the High Court to restrain the DAP from continuing. The High Court granted short service of the motion and directed the DAP to file a replying affidavit. The matter was then transferred into the Chancery List.

5. When I read the papers in this new case (Burke v O’Longain and Others) I was of the view that if the hearing had gone as Mr. Burke set out in his affidavit, then he had raised substantive and serious issues about the hearing of the DAP.

6. This court deals on a regular basis with applications for injunctions to restrain disciplinary hearings in all sorts of employment relationships. These cases – both on the law and facts – are always complex. They involve issues of constitutional law, contract law, employment law and the law relating to injunctions. In the case of teachers, the position is also governed by a Department of Education Circular.

7. It was clear to me that Mr. Burke would almost certainly need to file a replying affidavit to those filed by the DAP. In addition, Mr. Burke would need to prepare detailed legal submissions to make his case and to set out precisely why he was entitled to an injunction to stop the DAP. The DAP would file legal submissions in reply, which Mr. Burke would need to read and consider. It is reasonable to expect that a considerable amount of case-law will be referred to by both parties. Both sides will then need to prepare their arguments to fight the case in court. And it would all have to be done as quickly as possible because Mr. Burke would remain in prison throughout that time.

8. Mr. Burke has taken it upon himself to represent himself. He is a teacher of German and History. He has no knowledge of the law; he has no knowledge of constitutional law, of contract law, of employment law, or of procedural law. He has demonstrated that lack of knowledge at every hearing before me. Most of his arguments were unstateable. He has also followed a disastrous legal strategy from start to finish. At each stage, instead of learning from his defeats, he has doubled down, leading to heavier defeats. He has lost every single legal battle, with the exception of the objective bias of one of the members of the DAP.

9. This court is, under the Constitution, engaged in the administration of justice. That is its central role. Given the enormous number of hours it takes to prepare for a case such as this, I formed the view that Mr. Burke would be at a significant disadvantage if he were trying to prepare his case from a prison cell. Mr. Burke says a child could prepare it. That of course is typical of Mr. Burke’s bluster. He has a case to make but it will undoubtedly be heavily contested by experienced counsel on the other side.

10. Therefore in order to ensure that Mr. Burke had a proper opportunity to prepare his case, I formed the view that he should be released from prison to allow him to do this. I regarded his release to allow him to prepare his case as being in the interests of justice. If Mr. Burke loses his case, he would be the first to argue that he only lost because he was in prison, that he didn’t have a full opportunity to prepare, and that he was at a disadvantage.

11. In my view, the decision to release Mr. Burke to allow him time and space and an opportunity to prepare his case was a fair and reasonable decision.

12. I did not require that Mr. Burke would purge his contempt before he was released because I was of the view that this was unlikely.

13. I did however make it clear to Mr. Burke that the order of Mr. Justice Owens of 17th July 2023 – which he has never appealed and which is a lawful order of the High Court – was still in force, and, that if Mr. Burke trespassed on the school property, then he would be recommitted to prison for contempt of court. I could not have been clearer – both in giving my reasons for his release and in the consequences for Mr. Burke if he breached the court order again.

14. If Mr. Burke had been legally represented last week, his lawyer (assuming, of course, it wasn’t a member of his family but an objective, experienced counsel) would have understood exactly what my decision was, and would have advised Mr. Burke to focus on the essential elements in this case (i.e. fighting the DAP) and to ignore the performative nonsense of trespassing on school property.

Mr. Burke’s response

15. In my view, most people would have accepted their release from prison on these terms. They were reasonable and not onerous. Mr. Burke had been in prison over Christmas and had time to reflect on how his stubborn obstinacy and refusal to obey the rule of law – which every single citizen has to obey – have landed him in prison for over 500 days.

16. Mr. Burke’s immediate reaction to my decision was hostile. He said that he would return to school the very next day. I was of course surprised by his abnormal reaction and I considered changing my decision. But when I questioned him a second time he seemed more equivocal.

17. In any event, I thought that perhaps when he reflected on it overnight, he would see the advantages to him of this decision. Unfortunately that has proven not to be the case.

18. Mr. Burke says that when I released him I knew that he would turn up at the school. That is not so. When I delivered my first judgment on 18th November 2025, and directed the immediate arrest and committal of Mr. Burke, Mr. Burke went to ground and disappeared from view for a week. He made videos outside the school on Thursday, 20th November 2025 and Tuesday, 25th November 2025, but for an entire week he did not turn up to the school once or trespass on the school, despite his repeated ridiculous claims that he had a duty to come to school every day. I had thought therefore that there might be grounds to believe that he had learned his lesson, and that he could say what he wanted outside the school grounds. Unfortunately, that has proved not to be the case.

19. Mr. Burke stated that the court committed a “U Turn” in releasing him. That is not a correct interpretation of my decision on 14th January 2026. I set out above the reason why I decided to release him. This court, like all courts, is obliged to give reasons for its decisions. Those reasons were set out clearly and succinctly. There were no hidden reasons. Now that he is going back to prison, he will realise that there was no “U Turn” – only another opportunity missed by Mr. Burke.

20. Mr. Burke has also suggested that in releasing him, this court had set a “trap”. I am mystified by this argument. This court does not set “traps” for anyone, let alone persons who are in custody. There was no “trap” – only an opportunity for Mr. Burke to be released from prison to prepare for his case.

21. Mr. Burke speaks as though he has no free will and that it was somehow predetermined that he would be turning up at the school the following day. But Mr. Burke always had a choice. He was now at liberty in order to work on his case; but he knew that if he went to the school and trespassed again, he would be imprisoned again. Most rational and reasonable people would have chosen to stay home and work on their case. However, he decided to go out of his way to go back to the school, where he is not wanted, and to breach the court order again. In those circumstances, he has left the court with no option but to imprison him again for repeated breaches of court orders.

22. Mr. Burke’s statements after he was released on Wednesday, 14th January 2026 contained another avalanche of lies. He said that I had imprisoned him for life. That was a blatant lie and was known by him to be untrue. As I had stated in my third judgment of 9 December 2025, at paragraph 41: “The idea that Mr. Burke is to be imprisoned for life, as some would have it, is nonsense”. It was a wild and demonstrably false claim from a man who is increasingly losing sight of the truth. It is of course impossible to imprison someone for life when they have the keys to their own prison as Mr. Burke does.

23. But Mr. Burke’s numerous wild allegations against this court are all part of a pattern. He has made wild allegations against almost all judges, who have had the task of dealing with his case, at one time or another. He is waging war on the school, the DAP, the courts, the judiciary – anybody in fact who doesn’t agree with his version of events.

Conclusion

24. If Mr. Burke had turned up for school every day and had remained outside the school gates he would never have spent a day in prison. Mr. Burke does not have a duty to turn up to the school at all since he was dismissed for gross misconduct.

25. Mr. Burke knew all of this and yet he still decided to breach the court order and trespass on school property. As I have said before, if protestors trespassed on his property, he would be the first to seek the protection of the courts.

26. It is clear from the evidence before the court that Mr. Burke has again repeatedly trespassed on school property in breach of the court order. He is in flagrant contempt of court. He has no defence. I have therefore decided that Mr. Burke should be re-committed to prison for a further breach of the court order, and a further contempt of court.

27. Mr. Burke has a significant amount of work to do on his case. He had an opportunity to do so at home rather than in prison. He failed to take it. This, of course, is yet another misjudgement by Mr. Burke in a case littered with his misjudgements.

28. I want to re-iterate that Mr. Burke has been imprisoned for contempt of court – not for his religious beliefs. As I have always said, Mr. Burke is free to proclaim his objections to transgenderism from the rooftops. He can claim how opposed he is to all sorts of transgender issues – outside the school grounds. But he is not allowed to trespass and he is not allowed to breach court orders. The laws of this country apply to him just as they apply to everyone else.

29. I also want to re-iterate that Mr. Burke has the keys to his own prison. If he purges his contempt, and gives an undertaking not to trespass then he can be released from prison.