Background
The High Court considered whether to exclude Martina Burke, Ammi Burke and Dr Isaac Burke from physically attending future High Court hearings connected with Enoch Burke’s dismissal for gross misconduct from Wilson’s Hospital School and related proceedings. The issue arose after repeated interruptions of hearings involving Enoch Burke, including shouting, refusing judicial directions and declining to leave court when ordered.
The court had previously found Martina Burke and Ammi Burke in contempt and sentenced them to two weeks’ imprisonment. After giving all three individuals notice and several opportunities to submit objections, the court considered their arguments that it lacked power to impose the restriction, that Article 34.1 of the Constitution entitled them to attend in person, that the judge lacked impartiality, and that insufficient particulars of their alleged conduct had been supplied.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Cregan held that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to protect the administration of justice includes power to remove people who disrupt proceedings and to prevent their return. Relying on the Supreme Court’s explanation in Walsh v Minister for Justice, the court held that excluding particular individuals does not violate the constitutional requirement that justice be administered publicly, because the proceedings remain open to the public generally.
The court prohibited Martina Burke, Ammi Burke and Dr Isaac Burke from attending in person at future High Court hearings relating directly or indirectly to Enoch Burke’s dismissal, his dispute with Wilson’s Hospital School, or his proceedings concerning the Teaching Council, its disciplinary panel, the Director of Authorised Procedures or the Minister for Education. They must be given remote facilities enabling them to see and hear the proceedings. Any breach of the order may be treated as contempt of court.
Key Takeaways
- The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to exclude individuals whose persistent misconduct obstructs proceedings and the fair administration of justice.
- Open justice guarantees public proceedings but does not give every individual an unconditional right to attend physically while disrupting the court.
- The restriction was confined to three named individuals, specified High Court litigation involving Enoch Burke, and in-person attendance; remote access remains available.
Why It Matters
The judgment confirms that Irish courts may impose prospective, targeted attendance restrictions when repeated disruption makes ordinary courtroom management inadequate. Such an order can preserve orderly and fair hearings without converting proceedings into private hearings or excluding the public generally.
It also illustrates that remote access may be used to balance open-justice interests against the court’s obligation to protect parties, counsel, judges and other court users from coordinated disruption and intimidation.