Women to appeal dismissal of action aimed at halting prosecution over alleged Covid-19 quarantine refusal

Two Dublin women are to appeal the High Court’s dismissal of their action aimed at halting their prosecution for allegedly refusing to quarantine at a hotel during the Covid-19 pandemic following their return to Ireland from a holiday in Dubai in 2021.

Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger recently dismissed judicial review proceedings brought by Niamh Mulreany (27), of Scarlett Row, Essex Street West, Dublin 2, and Kirstie McGrath (32), of of St Anthony’s Road, Rialto, Dublin 7, seeking to halt their proposed prosecution before the District Court for alleged breaches of Covid-19 pandemic measures.

It is understood that the two are to appeal that decision and may seek a “leapfrog” appeal directly to the Supreme Court, rather than the Court of Appeal.

Ms Mulreany and Ms McGrath were arrested at Dublin Airport on April 2nd, 2021 on their return from the UAE. They travelled to celebrate “landmark birthdays”. They had initially intended to undergo cosmetic surgery procedures in the UAE, but ultimately did not go through with the procedures.

After they left Ireland, the State introduced Covid-19 quarantine requirements which stipulated that most persons arriving from certain states, including the UAE, would have to quarantine at designated hotels for up to 14 days.

Get back to children

They tested negative for the virus on their return and refused to get on a bus taking them to a designated hotel to quarantine. The women claimed that they could not afford the cost of stay, which was estimated at some €1,800 each. They also claimed that they needed to get back to their children and only had childminding arrangements in place for the time they were in Dubai.

Both were arrested and charged with breaching Section 38 of the Health (Amendment) Act 2021 due to their refusal.

They were granted bail by the District Court the day after their arrest but were unable to take it up because they could not afford it. They were detained at Mountjoy women’s prison and were then released and taken to another hotel where they remained in quarantine for several more days. They engaged in the State’s quarantine appeal process during their detention, but their release was refused.

Arising out of their refusal, both women were charged with breaches of the 1947 Health Act and, if convicted, could face fines of up to €2,000 and a period of imprisonment. They claim the charges against them are unconstitutional and that their trials should be halted.

Their action was against the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Health, Ireland and the Attorney General. They were represented by Michael O’Higgins SC, Keith Spencer Bl and Mark Lynam Bl.

Separation of powers

In their proceedings, the women argued that the Minister for Health’s designation of certain states as places, from where persons arriving to Ireland had to undergo mandatory periods of quarantine, breached the separation of powers, the principle of law and was unconstitutional.

It was claimed that such a measure should have been introduced by way of legislation through a statutory instrument and not by way of a Ministerial order.

The second legal issue concerned what was described as the lack of a legally permissible appeals process. Under the measures, a designated appeals officer could entertain an appeal from somebody who was detained in the quarantine facility.

However, the measures under the 1947 Act conferred what counsel said was a judicial power on what was a non-judicial body, which amounts to a breach of Article 37 of the Constitution.

In her decision, Ms Justice Bolger said the measures clearly provided for the designation of states for mandatory quarantine to be done by way of a decision made by the Minister for Health. This power was not intended to be done by regulations, the judge added.

The judge also rejected claims that the appeal process was unconstitutional or that Article 37 of the Constituion had been breached.

In their actions they had sought various orders including one halting their prosecutions, and a declaration that the offence of resisting being taken to a designated quarantine facility is invalid.