'Dubai two' lose appeal over prosecution for allegedly refusing covid quarantine
Attending Irishphotodesk Picture: Court In Kirstie Ie Mcgrath Appearance File A A Previous 2021
An appeal by two women over their alleged refusal to undergo hotel quarantine on a return trip from Dubai during the covid-19 pandemic has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Niamh Mulreany (aged 27), Scarlett Row, Essex Street West, and Kirstie McGrath (aged 32), St Anthony’s Road, Rialto, both Dublin, had brought an appeal over the High Court’s dismissal of their challenge to their prosecution for that alleged refusal.
The women had gone to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates where they claimed they intended to undergo cosmetic surgery but ultimately did not undergo the procedure. They were arrested at Dublin Airport on Good Friday, April 2, 2021, on their return.
At the time, they and most other passengers arriving from certain designated countries, which had included the UAE, were required to undergo mandatory quarantine at a hotel for up to 14 days. The measures were introduced to help prevent the spread of covid.
They refused to go to the hotel claiming that they could not afford the cost of the stay, estimated at over €1,800 each, and that they needed to get back to their children. They claimed they had only had child-minding arrangements in place for the time they were away.
As a result, they were charged with breaches of the Health (Amendment) Act 2021, and if convicted faced fines of up to €2,000 and a period of several months' imprisonment.
They claimed the charges against them were unconstitutional and launched judicial review proceedings against the DPP, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Health, Ireland and the Attorney General. After the High Court dismissed their challenge, they were granted an appeal to the Supreme Court.
They argued the procedural mechanism through which states were designated for mandatory quarantine was an impermissible exercise of the law-making power of the Oireachtas under the Constitution (Article 15.2.1).
They also argued that as a result of this the power of review of the subsequent quarantine by a “Designated Appeals Officer” was an impermissible exercise of the judicial function, contrary to Article 34.1 of the Constitution.
The respondents opposed the appeal.
In a judgment on Monday given by Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly, on behalf of a unanimous five-judge Supreme Court, she found the designation of states from which travellers would be required to quarantine by the Minister for Health was not “ultra vires”, or outside the exercise of legislative power.
She said the arguments on behalf of the women were “wafer-thin”. It was demonstrably clear from Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution that this type of designation was “wholly suited to be carried out at ministerial level” and did not require any specific parliamentary oversight in circumstances where the criminal scheme had been established clearly by statute.
The designation of the scheme gave a choice of designation based on considerations set out in the Health (Amendment) Act 2021, she said. She also found the review by the Designated Appeals Officer did not constitute the administration of justice.