Journalist denies article about jailed schoolteacher Enoch Burke was ‘bag of lies’ and insists she exercised ‘due diligence’

A journalist who wrote an allegedly defamatory article about jailed schoolteacher Enoch Burke has denied the story was a “bag of lies” and insisted she exercised “due diligence.”

Sunday Independent reporter Ali Bracken accepted that her report stating Mr Burke was moved in prison because he was “annoying” other inmates contained a “minor” inaccuracy.

However, she said the error was about the “logistics” of the move and did not accept that he had been defamed or that she was “prejudiced” against him.

Ms Bracken was giving evidence for the defence in Mr Burke’s High Court action against publishers Mediahuis Ireland Ltd.

The four-day defamation case concluded today and Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy reserved his judgment.

Mr Burke took the case over an article published on October 9, 2022, weeks after he was first imprisoned over his refusal to stay away from Wilson’s Hospital School in Co Westmeath.

The school had suspended and later dismissed him for, he says, standing up for his religious beliefs on transgenderism.

He has now been in prison for more than 340 days after being jailed for a second time for contempt by returning to the school in defiance of court orders.

Mr Burke claims the Sunday Independent article was “utterly false” and he was held up to ridicule.

Mediahuis denies Mr Burke was defamed, pleading fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest.

Ms Bracken said at the time, the country was “gripped” by Mr Burke’s story and it was of “huge public interest.”

“I would have rung a confidential source to find out how (Mr Burke) was getting on in prison,” Ms Bracken said.

She checked with a second confidential source to corroborate the information and contacted the Irish Prison Service but “they didn’t provide a comment.”

The article was published with the headline: “Burke moved to new jail cell as he is ‘annoying other prisoners.”

It stated Mr Burke had been moved to the prison’s general population, but “didn’t last long” because he was outspoken in his religious views and he “had to be moved for his own safety” back to a progression unit.

“I stand over the quotes, that was what I was told in good faith,” she told the court. “I have huge faith in my source.”

Ms Bracken said she did not contact the Burke family because they could not have known whether or not he was annoying prisoners.

When a complaint was made she went back to her sources to check the information.

“Unfortunately, which is a matter of regret for me, in terms of where we said Mr Burke was moved… that was inaccurate and that is what we apologised for”, she said. “We were incorrect in a minor matter of fact.”

In cross-examination, Mr Burke asked if she accepted the headline was false.

“I accept that it was incorrect in terms of the logistics of where you were moved within the prison,” she said.

She did not accept that it was “false” that he was annoying other prisoners. Mr Burke asked if she accepted it was false that he was moved for his own safety.

“It’s hard for me to believe that it was false,” she said.

Mr Burke said a letter from the Irish Prison Service stated he was moved “for operational reasons relating to space” and “there were no other issues considered.”

Ms Bracken accepted this was the prison’s position. Mr Burke asked if she saw how someone could wonder if her source even existed.

“My source does exist,” she said.

She said the story was “innocuous”, “not significant” and “I don’t think it’s defamatory.”

“I did my due diligence as far as I’m concerned,” Ms Bracken said.

She accepted there was “a failure” in reporting but not that there was a “substantial failure.” Ms Bracken denied that she was “reckless”, that she “wanted a headline” and “didn’t care whether it was true or not.”

In closing submissions, Mr Burke said the article promoted “laughter, mockery and shunning” of him and “the whole thrust of” it was untrue.

“This was a grave and serious libel,” he said. “It defamed me, my reputation was taken from me.. It was a wholly malicious hit job on me.”

Ronan Lupton SC, for the defence, said the “elephant in the room” was that Mr Burke was asking the court to vindicate his good name having not complied with orders of the very same court.

He said it was a “very unusual case” because of the status of the complainant.

The barrister argued that the meanings of the words in the article the plaintiff complained of was “too high” and asked “is it defamatory to say Mr Burke annoyed people?”

“We maintain the position that the article was not defamatory,” he said.

If the court did find “there’s an issue here”, Mr Lupton said “we are into nominal damages territory.”

He said the online article had been taken down very quickly.

Get ahead of the day with the morning headlines at 7.30am and Fionnán Sheahan’s exclusive take on the day’s news every afternoon, with our free daily newsletter.