The High Court has rejected a constitutional challenge brought by Kirstie McGrath and Niamh Mulreany over Ireland’s 2021 mandatory hotel quarantine regime, refusing the reliefs they sought. Ms Justice Bolger delivered the judgment on 22 June 2023.
The applicants had travelled from Dublin to the United Arab Emirates on 24 March 2021, two days after the UAE was designated for mandatory quarantine. They were due to return on 31 March but were told in Dubai they could not board without booking and paying for a designated hotel in Dublin. The judgment says they could not afford the cost and were anxious to return to their children. They arrived in Dublin on 2 April, refused to board a bus to a quarantine hotel, and were arrested and charged with resisting being brought to a designated facility.
They were released on bail by the High Court on 4 April and immediately taken to a hotel for quarantine. A designated appeals officer refused their requests for review. They were released on 13 April under the statutory provisions. They remain charged before the District Court, and the Director of Public Prosecutions had confirmed that prosecution would proceed if they lost this case.
Their challenge was limited to two issues. They argued that the Minister for Health had to designate states by regulation, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and that a designated appeals officer’s review of quarantine was an unconstitutional exercise of the judicial function. They did not challenge the statutory basis of the quarantine scheme or the decision to designate the UAE itself.
The judge held that the Oireachtas had expressly empowered the Minister to designate states by decision under section 38E of the Health Act 1947, subject to specified considerations, medical advice and consultation. The legislation also included a sunset clause requiring the temporary regime to return to the Oireachtas for review. The designation activated a quarantine obligation already set out in legislation; it did not itself create that obligation. The judge rejected the claim that the designation had to be made by regulation or that the relevant provision was unconstitutional.
The court also held that the appeals officer’s role was executive rather than judicial. The officer reviewed whether a person qualified for an exception to an existing quarantine obligation; the review decision did not itself impose detention, and further review applications were not barred. Judicial review and an application under Article 40.4 of the Constitution remained available. The judge added that, even if the review involved a limited exercise of judicial functions, it would be permitted under Article 37.1.
The judge rejected the State’s argument that the case was moot because the quarantine regime had ended: the pending prosecution remained consequential. She refused the applicants’ reliefs and listed the matter for mention on 11 July 2023 for any final orders required. The judgment does not state that the prosecution was decided in these proceedings.