Additional State funding is to be given to a school to help pay for security as Irish teacher Enoch Burke continues to attend school grounds.
The Department of Education informed Wilsonâs Hospital School that 4,440 euro would be given to the school to help pay for security costs for the next nine weeks due to the âexceptional circumstancesâ, a court was told.
Mr Burke appeared before the High Court on Wednesday to represent himself.
The board of management of the Co Westmeath school and Mr Burke have been entangled in a legal dispute stemming from incidents over a request in 2022 from the schoolâs then-principal to address a student by a new name and pronoun.
Mr Burke, an Evangelical Christian who was a teacher of German and history at the school, has repeatedly argued that the direction was unconstitutional and went against his right to express his religious beliefs.
The school has been granted injunctive relief, restraining him from attending the school, however he continues to attend in breach of the order.
He has been fined 225,000 euro and imprisoned for 500 days, a figure cited by Mr Burke, for attending the school in breach of the court order.
He appeared in the High Court on Wednesday, on a week where schools are on a midterm break, along with his parents Sean and Martina, brother Isaac, sister Ammi and two other sisters.
The court had heard previously that two vehicles may be sequestered and a bar on other Burke family members from attending the school grounds may be imposed.
The case also dealt with the fines facing Mr Burke and how they would be paid â a barrister told the court that daily fines of 2,000 euro for attending the school, in breach of a court order, had been set for âcoercive purposesâ.
Mr Burke said the court had âcompletely and entirelyâ emptied his bank account of thousands of euro and that his entire livelihood has been âtaken awayâ.
Mr Justice Brian Cregan told Mr Burke it was not aware that it was his entire livelihood as he had not submitted a statement of means, despite several invitations to do so.
Rosemary Mallon, a barrister representing the school, also told the court that the Department of Education had recently informed it that it will pay half of the schoolâs security costs until December.
They said this was due to the âexceptional circumstancesâ and âdynamicâ situation at the school.
After his brother Isaac was removed from court for interrupting proceedings, Mr Burke argued that it was an âabsolute scandalâ that after three years of the matter being before the courts that the principalâs initial instruction had not been analysed.
Naming several judges, he said not one âhad sniffedâ at an issue which he said was âat the heart of this caseâ.
Mr Cregan said the answer to that was when a court was considering whether the principalâs instruction was invalid, Mr Burkeâs conduct in that case was âdisgracefulâ and he was barred from court.
âYou had an opportunity to argue it, but you refused to argue it,â he said.
Mr Cregan then told Mr Burke that raising an issue with whether to call a student by a different pronoun, as it offended his religious beliefs, was âa valid legal issueâ.
Mr Burke interrupted to say that that was ânot an accurate way to frame itâ and claimed that it was âunconstitutional to ask a teacher to set aside their Christian religious beliefsâ.
âI understand that argument, it is a good argument,â Mr Cregan said, and added that he had been let go from the school because of his conduct.
âYouâre pulling out a lot of stuff out there,â Mr Burke said, to which Mr Cregan replied: âI am engaging with your arguments.â
He then addressed a complaint from Mr Burke that Mr Justice Owens had ânever engagedâ with the issue of the legitimacy of the then-principalâs initial instruction.
âWhy didnât you appeal the order of Mr Justice Owens?â
Mr Burke said that this was ânot the issueâ.
âYou have made a misstep here by not appealing the order of Mr Owens,â Mr Cregan said.
âItâs not on you to give me legal advice,â Mr Burke said.
âNo, itâs not, but I am engaging you on your argument, Mr Burke.â
When Mr Burke asked him if he was âabove the Court of Appeal or under itâ, Mr Cregan said it was a âridiculousâ question.
Asked again why he did not appeal the High Court order of Mr Owens, Mr Burke said he had answered the question already. The judge said he had not.
âI donât for the life of me understand why you did not appeal Judge Alexander Owensâ (order).â
Mr Burke replied: âYouâre filibustering now.â
After a break for lunch, Mr Cregan asked Mr Burke why he had not attended two previous hearings before him in relation to the case.
âWhy were you not here? Thatâs the fundamental point Mr Burke, you werenât here, why werenât you here?â
Mr Burkeâs sister Ammi stood up to interrupt, to which the judge said she had no right of audience in the court and Mr Burke was âwell ableâ to represent himself.
Arguing over a legal submission issue that arose in the last hearing, Mr Burke said there was âdishonesty on the benchâ.
Mr Cregan replied: âIf there is any dishonesty in this court, it is from you in relation to why you had been jailed.â
Responding, Ms Mallon said that a Court of Appeal judgment referenced repeatedly by Mr Burke also found that he was âegregiouslyâ in contempt of court.
She also made the point that Mr Burke had never attempted to appeal against Mr Owensâ judgment.
When Ms Mallon was asked by the judge why Mr Burke had not appealed, she said: âI have no idea, judge, and it has never been clear.
âIt is incomprehensible that at each juncture that Mr Burke attempts (to argue against) an order he didnât agree with but has never actually appealed it and is now far out of time.â
Ms Mallon said she was not âat this moment in timeâ seeking an injunction against some Burke family members from attending the school, but said she would seek further instructions if there was further trespassing.
âThe school wants to be a school and at this moment in time the principal, the chair of the board of management and members of the board â members of the community, parents â are all spending far too much time trying to stop Mr Burke breaking the rule of law rather than on running a school and educating the next generation of citizens.â
Mr Cregan asked Mr Burke again why he had not appealed against Mr Owensâs order.
âAsking me questions about my intentions is not an escape route for you to avoid doing justice,â Mr Burke said.
âMr Burke, where does all this end, from your point of view?â Mr Cregan asked.
Mr Burke replied: âJudge, it ends with you and your colleagues telling the truth.â
Mr Cregan said he would reserve judgment and notify the parties of a decision within a week.
Representatives of the Attorney General, the ministers for Finance and Education and the receiver also addressed the court during the hearing.
The Department of Education has been contacted for comment.
