The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals by Niamh Mulreany and Kirstie McGrath over Ireland’s former mandatory hotel quarantine scheme, holding that the Minister for Health could designate the United Arab Emirates without making regulations and that a quarantine review officer did not exercise judicial power.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Donnelly on 11 November 2024, concerned two constitutional challenges. The appellants did not dispute the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Oireachtas’s power in principle to provide for quarantine, or the designation of the UAE as a high-risk state. They challenged how the UAE was designated and the legality of reviews of continued quarantine by a Designated Appeals Officer.
The scheme was introduced by the Health (Amendment) Act 2021. The Minister designated the UAE and 32 other states on 22 March 2021. Two days later, the appellants travelled to the UAE. On their return, after a delay because they had not pre-paid quarantine costs, they were allegedly required to enter a designated facility and refused. They were arrested and charged with resisting being brought to one. After a night in prison, they were released on bail and later completed quarantine. The charges remained extant when the appeal was heard.
The Court held that section 38E of the Health Act 1947 expressly allowed the Minister to designate a state in writing. The Oireachtas had set out the quarantine scheme, its purpose and boundaries in legislation, while the Minister’s role was to decide which states met the designation criteria. The designation was publicised through government websites and official and media channels. The Court found no constitutional requirement to lay it before either House of the Oireachtas for approval or annulment. The scheme’s sunset clause was part of the overall assessment, but such a clause was not required to make the designation power constitutional.
The Court also rejected the argument that the Designated Appeals Officer’s review of quarantine was an administration of justice reserved to courts under Article 34 of the Constitution. It said quarantine was imposed by statute and the officer’s role was to consider requests for release, including on statutory or humanitarian grounds. The officer did not impose the detention or resolve a justiciable dispute. The Court therefore did not need to consider whether the review qualified as a limited judicial function under Article 37.
The judgment addressed the prosecutions separately. Grant of leave to seek judicial review had not stayed them, and no stay or order prohibiting them had been granted. The Court said there was therefore no reason to stop the prosecutions. It dismissed the appeal; it did not determine the appellants’ guilt or the criminal charges.