AG not taking contempt proceedings against Burkes

The Attorney General has told the High Court he will not be taking criminal contempt proceedings against teacher Enoch Burke and three members of his family over their behaviour in court "at this time".

Senior Counsel, Rossa Fanning, told Mr Justice Brian Cregan he had given very careful consideration to the matter and had come to court to deal with it personally in open court, as it was a matter of public interest.

The judge had asked the AG to consider taking such proceedings against Mr Burke, as well as his mother, Martina, sister Ammi and brother Isaac, over the way they had conducted themselves in court in the hearings before him.

Mr Fanning said the cases involving Enoch Burke had raised troubling questions about adherence to the rule of law. He said court orders must be obeyed. And he said the deliberate disruption of court proceedings by a group or individual was unacceptable and to be condemned.

But he said he took the view there would be no practical benefit in bringing criminal contempt proceedings against Enoch Burke who was already in prison for civil contempt of court by breaching a court order.

He said the proceedings would be futile as the penalty would only replicate what has already been ordered in the civil contempt proceedings. And he said the question of Enoch Burke's liberty remained in his own hands.

The Attorney General said in relation to the other members of Mr Burke’s family, he had grave concerns about what had emerged, from reading the transcripts of proceedings in court. But he said he had reached the difficult decision that he should not begin criminal contempt proceedings at this time.

Mr Fanning said there was a line between unruly behaviour, "borne out of heightened emotion" on one hand and criminal contempt on the other. He said the question arose as to whether the line had been crossed. He said the matter would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and he said each person’s conduct would have to be analysed.

Mr Fanning also told the court he had regard to the alternative remedies for criminal contempt. He said a judge could direct a disruptive person to be removed from a courtroom. And a person who refused to comply with a garda’s direction to desist from disruptive conduct or leave could be prosecuted.

Mr Fanning also pointed out that there were thousands of other litigants waiting for their cases to be heard.

He said through no fault of the judiciary, cases involving Enoch Burke and other members of his family had consumed a "disproportionate amount" of court time to the disadvantage of other litigants around the country. Taking criminal contempt proceedings before the High Court President, would increase the already heavy burden that judge was dealing with.

Mr Fanning said he was also conscious of the direct financial cost of any such proceedings. He said the Burkes might be entitled to apply for legal aid. But even if they did not, the taxpayer would have to pay costs of the lawyers and it would realistically cost the taxpayer a significant amount of money.

Finally, he said that given the history of the cases involving Enoch Burke, even if criminal contempt proceedings were successful, they would only involve the imposition of a modest fines or prison terms. These, he said "may reinforce an unfounded sense of martyrdom", but he said they were "unlikely to provoke any damascene conversion".

Mr Fanning told the judge his decision not to proceed could be revisited if circumstances changed.

The judge thanked the Attorney General for his consideration of the matter but he said his initial reaction was one of disappointment and surprise. He suggested that transcripts did not accurately reflect the tone and tenor of what went on week after week in the Burke cases.

However, he said he would reflect on the matter over Christmas and would decide whether he would initiate the criminal contempt proceedings himself, sending the matter to a different judge.

Judge Cregan said Criminal Contempt proceedings had been in use for hundreds of years to ensure the courts could police their own proceedings and to ensure order was kept in court.

The court also heard that a Disciplinary Appeals Panel heard Enoch Burke’s appeal against his dismissal from Wilson's Hospital School on Saturday in a hearing lasting from 10am to 6pm.

The panel must make its recommendation within ten school days, meaning a decision must be made by 9 January. The school's board of management must then consider the decision.

Judge Cregan said this could have implications for Enoch Burke’s continued imprisonment and he would list the matter again for 14 January.

Enoch Burke appeared in court via video link. He said the DAP was "very far from being a done deal" and he said everything went back to what had happened in the High Court in 2022, when the initial injunction against him was granted. And he said that would have to be addressed.

He said "we could wish with all our hearts that this was going away" but he said that was not going to happen. He told the court "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice."