Enoch Burke wins appeal over make-up of disciplinary panel

A teacher’s union leader cannot be allowed to decide whether Enoch Burke is allowed to keep his job, due to potential bias, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Mr. Burke had objected to Teachers’ union leader Kieran Christie forming part of a three-person panel, which would decide whether to uphold the controversial teacher’s dismissal from Wilson’s Hospital School in January 2023.

He accused Mr. Christie, the General Secretary of the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland (ASTI), of being a "promoter of transgenderism."

Mr. Burke claimed to the court that Mr. Christie had promoted or advanced transgenderism in schools, and had worked closely with Transgender Equality Network Ireland (TENI) over many years.

While siding with Mr. Burke, the appeal court refused to make a disciplinary panel pay his costs, citing Mr. Burke’s ‘egregious contempt’ of a High Court order that compelled him to stay away from Wilson’s Hospital School.

The controversial teacher was first suspended almost three years ago, in August 2022, and remains on full pay until his appeal against dismissal can be decided.

The suspension followed his reaction to being asked to address a transitioning student by a new name and the pronoun "they," which included his outbursts at a school meeting, dinner, and chapel service.

He said his Christian belief only recognised two genders, male and female, and has said he cannot condone "transgenderism."

Mr. Burke also argued in court that the ASTI had "unequivocally advised schools to accept and use transgender pronouns," referencing a newspaper article in which its Deputy General Secretary, Diarmaid de Paor, said: "ASTI advises schools to use the pronouns that students request to be addressed by."

Court of Appeal Judge Mary Faherty said Mr. Burke had made out a strong case that "that there is a reasonable apprehension of objective bias if Mr. Christie remains part of the [Disciplinary Appeal Panel] DAP."

She said it was reasonable to conclude that Mr. de Paor had the "informal or tacit approval" of the ASTI executive in making his remarks.

Judge Faherty continued: "My finding is premised on the nature of Mr. Christie’s role in the ASTI, and on the basis that a reasonable observer properly apprised of all the facts would understand that the ASTI’s position regarding students who wish to be addressed by a different pronoun, whilst not a formal policy, is likely to be adhered to by schools and indeed would appear to have been adhered to by the school in this case.

"The position adopted by the ASTI Executive runs counter to the appellant’s position. In that circumstance, an apprehension of objective bias arises if Mr. Christie remains on the DAP."

She said the balance of justice weighed in favour of an injunction against the disciplinary appeal, with Mr. Christie on the panel.

She said she believed another ASTI representative could take Mr. Christie’s position.

She explained: "No other nominee of the ASTI (whether coming from within or without the union) would be as implicated with the acceptance of the ASTI’s position on a transitioning student’s preferred choice of pronoun as Mr. Christie is."

However, she said she had to weigh up the appeal board’s argument, that Mr. Burke should not get the benefit of court protection, due to his longstanding contempt of a High Court Order that he stay away from Wilson’s Hospital School.

The board said Mr. Burke should not get to "pick and choose" which orders of the courts he respected.

Judge Faherty said Mr. Burke had already been jailed three times, and daily fines of up to €1,400 were being deducted from his salary for his continued attendance at the school.

"The appellant is paying a high financial price for his refusal to abide by the orders of the court, which, it has to be said, he has brought upon himself," she said.

She said she wanted to emphasise that in granting the injunction, the court was "not condoning the appellant’s egregious contempt."

However, she said the courts had already taken action against Mr. Burke regarding the contempt.

She said she would therefore, "albeit with a great deal of reluctance," allow Mr. Burke’s appeal, and would restrain the DAP from holding an appeal "as presently constituted of the appellant’s appeal against his dismissal."

There would otherwise be a "spectre of unfairness" over the appeal, she said, in which Mr. Burke could lose his job and livelihood.

She refused to make the DAP pay Mr. Burke’s legal costs in the appeal, due to his "egregious contempt."

Speaking after the ruling was given, an ASTI spokesperson said: "While the ASTI is disappointed at today’s ruling, we wish to examine the judgement in detail before making any further comment."

*This article was originally published on Extra.ie.