High Court: Enoch Burke cannot be permitted to garner any advantage from defying court orders

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2024] IEHC 746
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice David Nolan

Delivering judgment for the High Court in December, Mr Justice David Nolan stated that it would be a “travesty” for Mr Burke “to spend more years in jail over something which is entirely misconceived. Neither the Plaintiff, the court nor the State are trying to get him to change his views. That is the beauty of living in a democracy. He can hold those views. He can hold them trenchantly. He can speak about them as much as he likes. All he cannot do is breach the law.”

Background

The defendant’s incarceration for contempt of court was reviewed by Mr Justice Nolan in circumstances where he refused to purge his contempt by providing undertakings to comply with the court’s orders to abstain from trespassing at Wilson’s Hospital School and where he failed to pay any of the €193,800 in outstanding fines owing to the State on foot of the High Court’s orders in March 2023.

The High Court

Mr Justice Nolan explained that the matter had been before the High Court on more occasions than any other case involving a litigant in person, involving the making of 41 court orders by the High Court alone, and that despite the imposition of fines by Mr Justice Brian O’ Moore, no payment of any description had yet been made by the defendant.

The judge considered that the defendant remained on fully paid administrative leave pending the outcome of his litigation concerning the plaintiff’s disciplinary procedures, and so the “taxpayers are burdened with paying his salary while at the same time paying for his upkeep in Mountjoy Prison” at a cost of approximately €84,067 annually for imprisoned persons.

Mr Justice Nolan pointed out that this “double draw” on public finances supported his release from prison as he was in jail because he chose to be there.

The court stated that the defendant’s refusal to abide by the court’s orders was “a terrible waste”, likening the situation to that in the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) and emphasising that “The lesson of that parable is to the effect that we were all given gifts which we should use to the benefit of society, and that failure to do so is a travesty.”

The court continued: “The Defendant has been given remarkable gifts. He is highly educated and it would seem a very good teacher of history and German. These talents are being entirely wasted while he has spends an inordinate period of time in jail due to entirely misguided, and at times, ridiculous arguments that the school and the court are trying to abolish religious liberty or are trying to force him to act in a manner which is inconsistent with his religious beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Mr Justice Nolan opined that it appeared that the defendant was acting under the influence of other parties, noting that “He has acted in ways designed to prevent his release. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is exploiting his imprisonment for his own ends. It is clear to me that he has been persuaded by others that he is best seen as a martyr.”

Explaining that the “unattractive, but true” purpose of imprisonment for contempt is to coerce an individual into obeying a court order, the court contemplated that the only plausible interpretation of the defendant’s actions was that he saw some advantage in his continued imprisonment, turning the purpose of his imprisonment on its head.

Concluding that the defendant’s continued incarceration “would only facilitate whatever he feels he is currently achieving by being in prison”, Mr Justice Nolan warned that the court would not enable a person to garner some advantage from their contempt of court.

Finding the case before him to be “one of the very rare” examples where coercive imprisonment should stop “at least for the moment”, the court indicated that it would order the defendant’s release on the basis that the plaintiff could come back to court if he failed to comply with the order of Mr Justice Alexander Owens not to attend at the school.

Mr Justice Nolan also considered that the fine imposed by Mr Justice O’ Moore was clearly “not draconian enough” in circumstances where he refused to purge his contempt.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court ordered the defendant’s release and directed that the defendant must pay an increased daily fine of €1,400 until he purges his contempt.

The court also directed the parties to make submissions as to why the defendant’s bank account should not be sequestered and why his salary should not be paid into court to satisfy the outstanding fines, and further directed the Attorney General and a representative of the Department of Finance to attend court for the purposes of advising as to what mechanisms are available to ensure that defendant’s salary can discharge the fine.

The Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School v Enoch Burke (No. 1) [2024] IEHC 746