A teacher has been jailed over his refusal to comply with a temporary injunction preventing him from attending or teaching at the secondary school where he is employed.
Mr Justice Michael Quinn ordered that Enoch Burke be committed to Mountjoy Prison until he agrees to obey an order not to attend at or attempt to teach any classes at Wilson's Hospital School in Co Westmeath, which suspended him from his position as a teacher of history and German.
The order was granted after the school's lawyers told the court Mr Burke was not complying with both the terms of his paid suspension, and an ex-parte temporary injunction requiring him to stay away from the school.
The judge said Mr Burke must remain incarcerated until he purges his contempt and agrees to comply with the injunction secured by the school last week.
The judge made the order after Mr Burke told the court he could not comply with the order, and that he intended to return to the school.
Representing himself in the action, he said that he had been wrongly suspended from his job, that the disciplinary process used to suspend him was procedurally flawed and that the injunction should not have been granted.
Mr Burke was arrested on Monday morning at the school by gardaí before being conveyed to the Four Courts in Dublin.
The order for Mr Burke's attachment was made last Friday after the court was told that in breach of both the terms of his paid suspension and the temporary injunction, Mr Burke had been present on the school's campus "sitting in an empty classroom".
The school, located in Multyfarnham Co Westmeath, is the Church of Ireland's diocesan school for Meath and Kildare.
The board, represented in the action by Rosemary Mallon Bl, instructed by Ian O'Herlihy of Mason Hayes and Curran solicitors, claims that despite being served with and being made aware of the making of the interim injunction, Mr Burke had continued to attend the school.
Counsel added the school was seeking the committal order against Mr Burke as a coercive measure, had been taken as "a last resort", and not a punitive one.
It does not wish to see him jailed but wants him to comply with the terms of the temporary injunction.
The school claims his refusal to comply with the injunction may be disruptive to the school's students at the beginning of the new academic year.
Giving the court's decision, Mr Justice Quinn said the background issues in the dispute were not what he had to consider in relation to the motion for Mr Burke's attachment and committal.
Mr Burke, he said, has an opportunity to raise his objections to both his suspension and the injunction, at hearings that are scheduled for later this month.
The court's only concern was Mr Burke's compliance with the terms of the injunction, he said.
The judge said based on what had been put before the court, Mr Burke was in clear contempt of the court's order.
The defendant had clarified his position by stating he would not comply with the injunction obtained last week, the judge noted.
The judge said as a result, Mr Burke was being committed to prison until he decides to purge his contempt. Mr Burke can do this at any time, the judge added.
Previously, the court heard Mr Burke was placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of a disciplinary process commenced by the school, where he has been employed for several years.
That process commenced after it is alleged Mr Burke publicly voiced his alleged opposition to the school principal's direction to address a student, who wishes to transition, by a different name and by using the pronoun "they" rather than he or she.
Mr Burke told the court on Monday he believed the direction amounted to "hypocrisy", adding it was not something he could ever agree to do.
Agreeing to comply with the court order, he said, amounted to a breach of his own morals, ethos and religious views.
The school's board of management had last week secured a temporary, ex-parte, High Court order against Mr Burke, preventing him from attending or teaching any classes at the school.
The order was obtained because the board claims that Mr Burke was not abiding by the terms of his suspension, which, it is alleged, he believes is unlawful, by attending at the school.
The court also heard a substitute teacher had been hired to teach his classes while he remains suspended.
The temporary injunction is to remain in place until the matter returns before the High Court later this week.
The school says Mr Burke has been placed on paid administrative leave, but has not been sanctioned and no finding has been made against him.
The school claims that despite its decision to suspend him, he has continued to attend at the school's campus.
The school claimed he would continue to attend the premises, in accordance with the teaching timetable assigned to him prior to his suspension, unless committed to prison.
Mr Burke, the court heard, has described his suspension as being unreasonable, unjust and unlawful.
He also claims the school's request amounts to a breach of constitutional rights, the High Court heard.
In correspondence to Mr Burke, the school denied anyone was being 'forced' to do anything.
The school said it was focusing on the needs and welfare of its students and is affirming its policy in accordance with the 2000 Equal Status Act of not discriminating against any student.
It says it has acknowledged Mr Burke's religious beliefs but expects him to communicate with the student in accordance with the students and their parents' wishes.
The school claims that last June a service and dinner was held to mark its 260th anniversary.
It was attended by clergy, staff, past and present pupils, parents, and board members.
It is claimed Mr Burke interrupted the service and said the school's principal, Niamh McShane, should withdraw the earlier demand regarding the transitioning of the student.
It is also claimed he said he could not agree with transgenderism, and said it went against the school's ethos and the teaching of the Church of Ireland.
The school claims that after he spoke, members of the congregation and students walked out of the school chapel where the service was being conducted.
It is claimed that at the follow-up dinner Mr Burke did not sit at any table.
After the meal, he is alleged to have approached the principal, and again asked her to withdraw the request regarding the student.
Mr Burke told the court he did speak after the service, and that at the meal he again asked Ms McShane to withdraw the direction.
Arising out of Mr Burke's alleged conduct, a disciplinary process was commenced, and considered by the board, resulting in a decision to place him on administrative leave pending the outcome of the process.
The next stage of the disciplinary process is due to take place in mid-September.