Orange is the new Burke

The interesting comparison there is that the WBC have plenty of lawyers in their midst, and so they know how far they can push things and when to pull back because getting in legal trouble is ultimately going to be far more hassle than it's worth.

The Burkes also have lawyers/solicitors, and yet they just belt on and nearly seem to welcome/invite legal trouble because they're so intent on trying to show they're being discriminated against and victimised, and that even knowing what the law is, their opinions and beliefs supercede the law.

Absolute crackpots.

The panel would have been due to declare their findings soon. His application is purely designed to stop that from happening and drag it out longer, arguing that "…panel hearings had been to date devoid of “any sense of natural justice and fair procedures.”", which is laughable coming from a guy who Christmas Joy has been Mountjoy due to his repeated refusal to adhere to court rulings.

He wants the people on the panel who decided his appeal to recuse themselves, and a new panel to sit and decide his case.

Once they do, he will want the people on the panel who decided his appeal to recuse themselves, and a new panel to sit and decide his case.

Once they do, he will want the people on the panel who decided his appeal to recuse themselves, and a new panel to sit and decide his case.

Once they do, he will want the people on the panel who decided his appeal to recuse themselves, and a new panel to sit and decide his case.

Once they do, he will want the people on the panel who decided his appeal to recuse themselves, and a new panel to sit and decide his case.

And so on, until he feels he'll either get the result he wants, or until the courts decide he's dragging it out intentionally and refuse him, at which point he can start crying about being mistreated by the courts.

Shane Phelan and Ray Managh's report in the Indo gives an outline of Burke's grounds for seeking injunctive relief.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/enoch-burke-may-take-legal-challenge-against-disciplinary-appeal-panel/a126075496.html

Specifically (I've highlighted the reported grounds in bold):

In the latest legal proceedings in the saga, Mr Burke is seeking declarations that the manner in which the December 13 hearing was conducted was “unfair, unreasonable, unlawful and contrary to natural justice and fair procedures”.

In a legal filing, he claims the hearing was ended abruptly and prematurely while he was in the middle of cross examining a witness.

Mr Burke also claims the panel refused to receive a series of affidavits in relation to what he alleges were errors in a disciplinary report prepared by then principal Niamh McShane.

Another key issue for Mr Burke was the presence of Ms O’Brien on the panel.

The teacher previously successfully challenged the presence of ASTI general secretary Kieran Christie on the panel.

Last year, the Court of Appeal accepted there were grounds for saying a reasonable observer would have a reasonable apprehension of objective bias from Mr Christie because of comments and actions made by the ASTI in relation to "transgenderism".

In an affidavit, Mr Burke said that in advance of the December DAP hearing, he had objected to Ms O’Brien’s nomination as Mr Christie’s replacement.

His objections were rejected by the DAP.

According to his affidavit, Mr Burke questioned Ms O’Brien at the December hearing about a September 2022 ASTI statement in which the union said it would advise schools to use pronouns that a child wishes to be used.

Mr Burke said he asked Ms O’Brien if she agreed with the statement. He said she responded that as a teacher she “would have to be directed” by her principal in relation to what to call a particular child if the issue arose.

According to Mr Burke, she said that if she were instructed by the principal, she would have to implement the instruction.

Mr Burke argued that in light of this, a reasonable and impartial observer would have “a grave concern” that Ms O’Brien could not approach his appeal from a neutral and unbiased standpoint.

In the affidavit, he went on to claim that Mr Ó Longáin told him he could not cross-examine witnesses.

He claims that after objecting to this, Mr Ó Longáin said he would only allow some questions, through the chair, and that only questions permitted by the DAP would be put to witnesses.

Mr Burke claims he was repeatedly stymied by interruptions from the DAP while questioning Ms McShane and former board of management chair John Rogers.

He claims that questions about alleged factual errors in the disciplinary report compiled by Ms McShane were “closed down” by Mr Ó Longáin.

Mr Burke further claims the hearing was ended while he was in the middle of cross examining Ms McShane.

This has many similarities to the approach he took when he went to the High Court in December 2023 looking for an injunction blocking the original DAP, and while he failed to get it then, it was subsequently granted by the COA in July 2025. In the COA case, he advanced six grounds of appeal in his notice of appeal. The Court of Appeal, with some reluctance it has to be said, sided with him. In addition to stopping the DAP process in its tracks, he succeeded in delaying the proceedings by two years. Based on the Indo report, the grounds advanced in yesterday's hearing are different to the last time around, but nonetheless were sufficient for Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell to allow Burke to proceed with his application for a temporary injunction. While we can happily rant about the Burkes collective appalling behaviour etc they have sharp minds and steely focus and the what looks like less than stellar conduct of the DAP process overall has presented them with something of an open goal. If Burke is successful in his application for a temporary injunction this will almost inevitable be followed by a permanent injunction. Which will in turn be followed by one of two things, either a complete restart of the DAP process with a freshly constituted panel, or an abandonment of the process.

This case appears to be far from over, and as it stands Burke is far from being the obvious loser

If anybody is interested, this is the link to the July 2025 judgement in the COA. It is a dense 90 page read but it does show that buffoonery and appalling conduct aside, the Burkes are quite a force to be reckoned with when they behave themselves.

https://ww2.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f2a33d3d-b704-468d-b6d9-555fc944523a/2025_IECA_148-1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

His grounds appear far wider than the composition of the panel and go right to the heart of the way the DAP conducted it’s business. If his claims are substantiated and accepted by the High Court the outcome of his application for injunctive relief is a forgone conclusion.

If the the second DAP proceedings are stopped, it could well be the end. It’s a general you can’t go on hearing the same case repeatedly as you start to run the risk of double jeopardy, undue burden, stigmatisation, etc. Two bites of the cherry is often considered just about reasonable.