State rejects claims that hotel quarantine measures during Covid were unconstitutional
Kirstie McGrath (pictured) wants her prosecution for breaches of the Health Act halted by the High Court. File picture: Paddy Cummins/IrishPhotodesk.ie
The State has rejected claims that measures brought in to combat the spread of Covid-19 and being challenged by two women who refused to quarantine at a hotel on return from Dubai in 2021 are unconstitutional.
The actions have been brought Niamh Mulreany (26) and Kirstie McGrath (31) who want their prosecutions for breaches of the Health Act halted by the High Court.
The two friends were arrested at Dublin Airport on Good Friday, April 2, 2021, on their return from a holiday in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, where they originally intended but did not undergo cosmetic surgery.
They refused to undergo mandatory quarantine at a hotel because they claimed they could not afford the €1,800 each cost of the stay, and child-minding arrangements they had put in place were only for the duration of their holiday.
Ms McGrath of St Anthony's Road, Rialto, Dublin 7, and Ms Mulreany of Scarlett Row, Essex Street West, Dublin 2, are lone parents, and their children were being cared for by their relatives.
On Wednesday, Michael Cush SC appearing for the State with Emile Burke-Murphy Bl, said that the Minister for Health was lawfully entitled in March 2021 to introduce measures requiring most persons travelling to Ireland from certain designated states, including the UAE, to undergo mandatory hotel quarantine.
On their arrival back to Ireland the two applicants and most other passengers arriving here from the UAE were required to quarantine at a hotel for up to 14 days. Everything that the minister did in this instance is contained in the 1947 Act, counsel said.
In his submissions to the court, Mr Cush said that act allows the minister, based on expert advice he receives during the rapidly changing situation that pertained in March-April with Covid-19, to designate the UAE as one of the countries travellers to Ireland had to undergo mandatory hotel quarantine.
There was no requirement that the minister's power to delegate in this instance had to be done by legislation, as claimed by the applicants, counsel said.
Counsel added that the designation had "a sunset clause", whereby it could only be kept in place for a maximum period of three months and could only be extended by a vote of Oireachtas.
Katherine Donnelly, SC for the State also rejected claims made on behalf of the applications concerning the process in which those quarantining in the designated hotels could appeal was also a breach of the constitution.
Counsel said similar arguments raised in another case challenging the mandatory hotel quarantine had been rejected by the High Court.
The State was replying to the applicants' claims that the minister's designation of certain states, as places from where persons who travel to Ireland, had to undergo mandatory periods of quarantine, breached the separation of powers, the principle of law and the constitution.
Such a measure should have been introduced by way of legislation through a statutory instrument and not by way of a Ministerial order, the applicants allege. They claim that any such designation should have been subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Arising out of their refusals to go the hotel, both applicants were charged with breaches of the 1947 Health Act, and if convicted face fines of up to €2000 and a period of several months' imprisonment.
They claim that the charges against them are unconstitutional and have asked the High Court for orders halting their prosecutions in judicial review proceedings against the DPP, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, The Minister for Health, Ireland and the Attorney General.
As well as seeking orders halting their prosecutions, they also seek a declaration that the offence of resisting being taken to a designated quarantine facility is invalid.
They also seek various declarations from the courts including that certain provisions of the 1947 Health Act are invalid, unconstitutional and are contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. They further seek damages against the respondents.
The measures, which have since been discontinued, were brought in last year to help prevent the spread of the virus. The hearing continues before Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger, who during Wednesday's hearing indicated her intention to reserve her decision following the conclusion of submissions from the parties.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
