The High Court has dismissed an application by Enoch Burke alleging that a warning about removing disruptive people from the courtroom was unlawful. Mr Justice Nolan ruled on 21 January 2025 that the warning was consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Walsh v Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] IESC 15.
The ruling arose from a hearing on 20 December 2024 in proceedings brought by the Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School against Burke. Mr Justice Nolan said Burke had accused him of acting unlawfully and breaching Walsh after the judge said a person who interrupted proceedings could be removed and barred from returning to future hearings. The judge described Burke as repeatedly interrupting and insulting him, making it difficult for those in court to hear what he was saying.
Nolan said he treated Burke’s comments as an application asking him not to issue such a warning. He rejected the argument, finding that Walsh supported a court’s power to remove a person who persistently disrupts proceedings. The ruling stressed that removal to maintain order is distinct from imprisonment as punishment for contempt.
The judgment quoted the Supreme Court’s account of the procedure to be followed: a person should first be warned that continuing the behaviour may lead to exclusion and given an opportunity to explain, apologise or undertake not to repeat it. The judge said this procedure was practical and consistent with the Constitution and the rule of law.
Nolan said his intention was to remove a disruptive person from court and prevent their return until they apologised and agreed not to continue disrupting proceedings; he said he had not intended to commit anyone to prison. The ruling also noted that exclusion of an individual does not, by itself, mean a hearing is no longer held in public.
The court dismissed the application, described in the ruling as an application “if I can call it that”, that the judge had acted unlawfully in issuing the warning. Nolan said he would issue the warning again. The ruling does not record a new imprisonment order or a finding that Burke was in contempt at this hearing.