Enoch Burke turns up to school again despite sacking - read OP before posting

Trespassing laws, how they are implemented and interrupted is certainly relevant considering Burke was literally arrested for it.

What makes you think he would be acquitted?

By the time it got to trial it would be multiple arrests for trespass plus a revoking of bail.

On what grounds would a judge not find him guilty?

His defence will be his family screaming like banshees and he blurting out transgender nonsense, you do realise who we are dealing with here right?

they just didn’t find there was enough evidence to pursue charges

Yes. It is a very simple question. What evidence would they need to "find" to pursue a conviction for trespass?

Again, here is the legislation. It's not complicated.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/13/enacted/en/html

No. It's contempt of court, and punishable as such, but it's not inherently a criminal offence.

(Obviously, depending on the circumstances, the particular act that breaches the court order may also be a criminal offence in itself — e.g. if there's a court order telling me to stay away from you and I violate it by breaking into your house and assaulting you, those acts are crimes. But they would be crimes even without the court order.)

Following a case and understanding a case are clearly very different.

WHS followed A procedure, that doesn’t make it lawful.

In order to follow a procedure there needs to be a policy, one that has been shared with and understood by employees and it needs to be lawful.

There was no pronoun policy in place. Why? Because there was and is no law in Ireland that provides for suspension from a workplace for refusing to use pronouns.

There was no just cause for disciplinary action initially and the original suspension was unlawful. Refusal to follow orders from the head in this instance isn't applicable, no more had he refused to clean the toilets.

They did not follow procedure, because there was none. He had done nothing unlawful at that stage.

Collete Colfer - why was she not suspended even WITH a so called gender pronoun policy in place?

Cue silence…….

Burke wasn't suspended because he refused to use pronouns. He was suspended because he interrupted school events —specifically, a church service — to air his grievances and proclaim his views, and because, separately, he pursued and harassed the school principal for the same purpose.

The substantive content of Burke's views about transgender issues and the appropriate way to relate to, and speak to, transgender people is irrelevant to his suspension. No employer needs a "pronoun policy" in order to discipline an employee behaving in this fashion. if Collette Colfer every did anything remotely like what Burke did, I never heard about it. This answers your question as to why she was not suspended.

The statement that "the original suspension was unlawful" is without foundation. No court or tribunal has found at any state that it was unlawful. On the contrary, the High Court has found that . . .

The school principal and Board acted in accordance with their obligations under Enoch Burke’s employment contract in initiating and conducting the process which led to suspension of his employment as a teacher.

. . . and that . . .

The Board is entitled to a declaration that the decision on 22 August 2022 to put Enoch Burke on paid administrative leave was lawful.

I don't know who has told you that the suspension was unlawful but, a wild guess says that it was the same person who told you that he was suspended because he "refused to use pronouns". Whoever it was, you should definitely stop listening to them; they are lying to you.

Collete Colfer - why was she not suspended even WITH a so called gender pronoun policy in place?

No idea who that is, but did she behave like an aggressive attention seeking ape at a church service and accost her boss?

"Cue silence……."

It’s amazing the amount of people that believe Enoch was suspended became of pronouns and not his actions and conduct towards the school and was jailed for his religious beliefs, maybe there is a job teaching for Enoch at the end after all for people that can’t understand facts and can’t add up one and one and come up with pronoun as the answer to Enoch problems. Enoch real problems is down to mammy, the old saying mother Ireland is still rearing them comes to mind.

Absolutely not; no amount of arrests for an offence are evidence that you have committed the offence.

Of course it is, given the arresting guards actions and opinion is evidence in trespass.

If the Guard asked him to leave and he didn't that is evidence and central to the crime.

The crime is dealt with as a summary conviction, the arresting guards testimony would be key admissible evidence.

It shall be an offence for any person, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, to fail to comply with a direction given by a member of the Garda Síochána under this section.

Again, the legislation is not complicated. Why you continue to try and make it so is just bizarre at this stage.

Well the Burke’s told them and they wouldn’t lie because that would be a sin.