A judge will decide next week if jailed teacher Enoch Burke’s mother Martina and sister Ammi were in contempt of court over their behaviour during a hearing last Friday.
During sometimes impassioned responses on Wednesday over the contempt issue, Martina Burke repeatedly argued her “righteous” and “godly” son should never have been imprisoned and insisted he was jailed over his opposition to “transgender ideology”.
She accused Judge Brian Cregan of “covering up” in relation to her son’s complaints about the alleged conduct of a disciplinary appeal panel hearing of his appeal over his dismissal from his employment. Her son had been “abused” and “mocked” at the hearing and denied his rights, she said.
Ammi Burke, in her response, said the judge’s striking out last Friday of her brother’s challenge over the hearing was an “appalling abuse of power” by the court.
She told the judge he was “desperate” to strike out her brother’s case over the “shambolic” hearing which was “abusive” of her brother and where his right to cross-examine witnesses was “vehemently opposed”.
Her brother has been denied his rights over 3½ years and she would not “sit silently by while constitutional rights are denied and lies are told in court”.
Enoch Burke’s sister Ammi and father Sean at the Four Courts on Wednesday morning. Photograph: Collins Courts
“You are one of 11 judges who have denied my brother his constitutional rights,” she said.
Interruptions by some Burke family members had led to Cregan temporarily suspending proceedings last week relating to Burke’s challenge over the conduct by a disciplinary panel of his appeal against his dismissal from his employment at Wilson’s Hospital School, Co Westmeath.
The judge adjourned the mater to Wednesday when he said he was considering whether there was contempt of court by Martina and Ammi Burke.
Enoch Burke was present via remote link from prison while his parents Martina and Seán and some of his siblings, including his sister Ammi, and brothers Isaac and Josiah, were in the court.
There were three matters before the court – the school’s application to measure costs at €31,549 of contempt proceedings before the judge; Burke’s application to have the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) consider possible perjury by Sean Ó Longáin, who chaired the second disciplinary appeals panel convened to hear Burke’s appeal against dismissal; and possible contempt proceedings against Martina and Ammi Burke.
In relation to the contempt matter, the judge said the court has jurisdiction to make findings of contempt in face of the court.
The specific conduct he was referring to last Friday was repeated shouting at the court by Martina and Ammi Burke, repeated refusals to sit down despite warnings and interruption of the school’s submissions, he said.
A contempt finding could result in a fine or a term of imprisonment, he said before inviting Martina and Ammi Burke to set out their response.
Earlier, moving his application concerning alleged perjury, Enoch Burke described as “a fiction” statements by Ó Longáin the panel’s hearing of the appeal had not concluded on December 13th and it was always intended the hearing would be reconvened.
He argued it was said in court, was clearly and widely understood, and was reported by media, the hearing had concluded on December 13th and a recommendation would issue from the panel before January 9th.
Opposing the application, barrister Hugh McDowell, for the panel, said the legal challenge by Burke over the conduct of the panel hearing was struck out last Friday as pointless. That strike out order followed resignations by two panel members on legal advice last month, and acceptance by the third member she could not be part of a reconvened panel.
The court was now being asked to decide whether Ó Longáin’s statements were true or otherwise and a mere assertion by Burke of untruth was not sufficient for a perjury referral, counsel said.
Ó Longáin, a qualified barrister, had, in replies to Burke’s claims, denied any suggestion of perjury and said he had given a truthful account of what had occurred at the panel hearing, counsel said.
This meant the court was faced with a “he said, she said” situation. There was no basis for referral of this “fairly minor” matter to the DPP and no link should be drawn between Ó Longáin’s resignation from the panel and Burke’s allegation of perjury.
In reply, Burke disputed this was a “he said, she said” situation. A letter to him from the panel on January 2nd last, signed by Ó Longáin, had followed letters from Burke in December.
The panel’s letter had said, having considered the matter inclusive of Burke’s letters, it had decided to reconvene the hearing. This was “unassailable evidence” that it was in response to his letters of complaint the panel had decided to reconvene the hearing, he said.
At this point, Martina Burke attempted to interrupt but the judge said he was reserving his ruling.
Separately, moving the costs application, the school’s barrister, Rosemary Mallon, asked the judge to measure “fair and reasonable” costs of some €31,549, rather than have the costs decided by a legal costs adjudicator, of the contempt proceedings.
Enoch Burke opposed the application, arguing the entire proceedings related to his constitutional right to freedom of religious belief, he was unlawfully suspended and jailed, and the court had no authority to penalise him.
As Burke continued making submissions, the judge muted the remote link, saying it was “clear” he was opposing the application. He said Burke had not been sent to prison because of his religious rights, he was jailed for trespassing at the school in breach of a court order.
While having sympathy for the school’s bid to have costs measured, he said he believed the assessment of costs could be more efficiently done by a legal costs adjudicator. The bill of costs ran to 20 pages and the matter involved numerous applications before the court, he said.