Jailed teacher Enoch Burke's High Court defamation action over a newspaper report when he was in prison for contempt for the first time in 2022 is to be heard at the end of April and early May.
Mr Burke is approaching his 300th day in prison for twice defying court orders not to attend the Wilson's Hospital School in Westmeath, which sacked him over what he says was standing up for his religious beliefs over transgenderism.
On Friday, he attended court by video link from prison when a date was set for his defamation action against Mediahuis Ireland, publishers of the Sunday Independent.
The newspaper ran a story on him on October 9th, 2022, during his first period in jail for contempt, and before he was released with €700 daily fines imposed on him instead of imprisonment. When he returned to the school he was jailed for a second time for contempt last September.
He told the court on Friday the newspaper article contained an "egregious libel" for which there has been no admission of defamation or apology.
Ronan Lupton SC, for Mediahuis, said his client strongly denies defamation and pleads fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest. It was a very short article in the paper stating that Mr Burke had been moved to a new cell in Mountjoy because he was annoying other prisoners, counsel said.
Mr Burke agreed with Mr Lupton that it was a straightforward case and he wanted an early hearing date. The case will be heard by a judge sitting alone rather than before a judge and jury which is usually what happens in defamation cases.
Ms Justice Stack agreed to set April 30th/May 1st for the hearing and also to a request from Mr Burke that each side have written submissions put in in advance of the hearing, as he said it would give some clarity to the case.
Mr Burke prefaced his application for a hearing date by complaining that an order requiring the prison authorities to produce him in person for the court on Friday had not been made.
The judge told him this was a procedural hearing to fix a date, which is held on a hybrid remote/physical basis, but that a production order would be made for the hearing of the defamation action itself.
It was not unusual for people in prison to attend court remotely, particularly for bail hearings, she said. There was also no prejudice to the person in custody in appearing remotely, she said.
Mr Burke then said as the judge had mentioned he was in custody a number of times, he said he was there because she [Ms Justice Stack] was the first judge to say the case had nothing to do with his religious beliefs.
He told the judge he was in custody because she had granted the first injunction, that she had agreed with counsel in the case at that time "in a false statement". He also said the judge had lied about his position and his religious beliefs.
The judge told him the order she made previously had "long since been overtaken" by the orders of other judges which were also appealed and upheld. "All of that has been litigated and is ancient history", she said.
Mr Burke said it was not ancient history "for me, I am in court today because of your order".
Mr Burke then moved on to choosing a suitable date for the hearing, which Mr Lupton agreed with.
As the hearing ended, Mr Burke's sister Ammi began telling the judge she was very concerned about the "ancient history" comment. She said Ms Justice Stack granted her injunction "on the basis of a lie".
Asked by the judge to “please stop” as she did not have a right of audience before the court, Ms Burke continued asking the judge to "retract that offensive statement that it is ancient history".
The judge then told her the court would have to rise to have her removed if she did not stop and requested the registrar to call the next case.
Ms Burke continued to speak before she was again told by the judge the court would have to rise if she did stop. Ms Burke said the judge should be "ashamed of yourself, this case is all about his religious beliefs". She then left the courtroom.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal was told on Friday Ammi Burke’s appeal of the High Court’s rejection of her action against the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) was on track to proceed as scheduled on April 22nd.
