About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 132
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Brian Cregan

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Brian Cregan opined: “Mrs Burke and Ms Burke — just like their brother Enoch — are not exceptional. They are just exceptionally unable to accept what every other citizen in this republic accepts every day i.e. that the law applies to them and that they are subject to the rule of law. We live in a democracy governed by the rule of law and not a theocracy governed by the Burke family.”

Background

The plaintiff was dismissed by Wilsons Hospital School for gross misconduct in January 2023, leading him to appeal to a Disciplinary Appeal Panel (DAP).

Following various challenges to that DAP and a second DAP formed thereafter, the plaintiff instituted proceedings seeking an injunction restraining the three members from continuing with the hearing of his appeal.

On 20 February 2026, those proceedings were struck out as moot, in circumstances where the first and third defendants had resigned from the DAP and the second defendant had effectively given an undertaking that she would no longer serve on any new DAP.

The plaintiff argued that in the ex tempore judgment arising from the hearing on 20 February 2026, Mr Justice Cregan failed to address his argument that the court should send the first defendant’s affidavits to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on grounds that the second defendant had committed perjury.

Mr Justice Cregan also wished to address the issue of whether the plaintiff’s mother, Mrs Martina Burke, and his sister, Ms Ammi Burke, had committed a contempt of court at the hearing on 20 February 2026.

Those two issues came before the court on 25 February 2026.

The High Court

In respect of the first issue, Mr Justice Cregan considered the plaintiff’s affidavit.

The plaintiff alleged that the averment of the second defendant that the DAP intended to continue their hearing at a later date, was false in circumstances where inter alia at the end of the hearing, the second defendant had stated that “this hearing is over”.

The court had regard to an affidavit of the second defendant filed in response to the plaintiff’s allegations, which explained that owing to the conduct of the plaintiff and his family, “the day of hearing concluded in chaotic scenes, with people shouting across the room and at the DAP. It simply was not possible for the DAP to rationally explain to Mr Burke that the hearing would continue on another day.”

Explaining that the court had not addressed the issue of referral to the DPP in its first judgment “because it was not relevant to the issue of mootness and because I thought it was a submission of no merit”, the court noted that there was no question of referral of the second defendant’s affidavits to the DPP.

In this regard, Mr Justice Cregan pointed out inter alia that the allegations were contested and that the court would never make findings of fact in contested interlocutory injunctions where both parties give a different version of events on affidavit.

Mr Justice Cregan also highlighted:

Refusing the application, the court then proceeded to address the contempt of court issue.

Mr Justice Cregan recalled that on 25 February 2026, the court had informed Mrs and Ms Burke that it had decided to invoke the contempt of court jurisdiction in respect of both of them in relation to their conduct at the hearing on 20 February 2026, namely “their repeated shouting at the court which constituted contempt in the face of the court, interrupting court proceedings, refusing to comply with directions of the court, and causing the court to abandon the application until order was restored in court and until they were removed from the court by 10 to 12 gardai”.

Having recounted the submissions of Mrs Burke in response thereto, the court opined that fundamentally, “it is clear that Mrs Burke believes that she has a right to shout at any judge at any time on whatever issue she wants, irrespective of whether it disrupts court proceedings are not”.

The judge continued: “On each and every occasion, at least ten guards have to be present in court to ensure order and to remove members of the Burke family.  This is completely abnormal. Indeed, I cannot think of any other case in the last 30 years where this has happened.”

Concluding that Mrs Burke had provided no defence or justification for her behaviour, Mr Justice Cregan determined that her actions on 20 February 2026 constituted a contempt of court.

As to Ms Burke, the court noted that her submissions “were completely inappropriate in tone and content to be addressed to a Judge of the High Court from a person who is a solicitor”.

Finding that Ms Burke was also guilty of contempt of court, Mr Justice Cregan observed that “what Ms Burke sought to do was to interrupt the court proceedings so that that application could not even properly be heard and determined by the court. It is the very essence of an interference with the administration of justice.”

Having considered the law on contempt, the court concluded that Mrs Burke’s and Ms Burke’s behaviour was “a paradigmatic case of contempt of court”.

Mr Justice Cregan opined that the plaintiff and his family believe that they are above the law, and that the question was whether they should be exempt from the rule of law because they are Christian evangelicals.

Emphasising that there is no exemption for “Christian evangelicals, or climate change activists, or animal right activists, or anti-abortion protesters” and that the law applies equally to all who seek to deliberately interrupt court proceedings, Mr Justice Cregan had regard to Walsh v Minister for Justice and Equality & Anor [2019] IESC 15 in reaching the view that Mrs and Ms Burke should be sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment.

Having particular regard to the behaviour of Ms Burke, as a solicitor and officer of the court, Mr Justice Cregan indicated that the court would send certain papers to the Law Society’s relevant disciplinary committee to consider if, and when, it should open a disciplinary investigation into Ms Burke.

Noting that it was “long past time for the court to call a halt to this family circus”, the judge expressed that he would consider making a direction under s.11 of the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, that Mrs Burke, Ms Burke and Dr Isaac Burke, a brother of the plaintiff, should not be permitted to attend in person any further hearings involving the plaintiff, but should only be allowed to attend those hearings remotely.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court refused the plaintiff’s application, sentenced Ms Burke and Mrs Burke to two weeks’ imprisonment, and invited Ms Burke, Mrs Burke and Dr Burke to file written submissions in respect of the intended order preventing them from attending hearings in person.

Enoch Burke v Sean O’Longain, Geraldine O’Brien and Jack Cleary (No. 2) [2026] IEHC 132