The High Court has granted Imran Ali leave to pursue a judicial review challenging temporary Covid-19 restrictions on travel out of Ireland. The court said his challenge raised arguable legal issues, but did not decide whether the regulations were valid or whether his arguments would succeed.
Ali, a Portuguese citizen, said in an affidavit that he travelled from Dublin Airport to Portugal on 19 April 2021 to help his wife and two sons extend their permission to remain there. He said a Garda member asked about the purpose of his trip, and that he was allowed to board after explaining it and showing emails.
A fixed-payment notice dated 6 May 2021 alleged that Ali had committed an offence described as “Movement of Persons Airport/Port”. It offered him the option of paying €2,000 within 28 days to avoid prosecution. After he sought cancellation, the appeal was refused on the basis that his explanation was not considered a reasonable excuse. The refusal letter gave no reasons. The judgment said its date of 1 July appeared to be an error and that it seemed to have been issued on 1 June; either way, it appeared to arrive after the payment period had expired.
A summons had been applied for but had not issued by the time of the hearing. The High Court rejected the State respondents’ argument that Ali had to put his case to a criminal trial before challenging the legislation. It considered his case to be a broader challenge to the regulations themselves, including claims about the constitutional right to travel, EU free-movement rights, proportionality and the lack of reasons for refusing cancellation. Those were Ali’s pleaded claims, not findings by the court.
The court held that the factual basis was sufficiently established for the legal issues to proceed, and that the threshold for leave—an arguable case—had been met. It stressed that granting leave was not a final determination and did not mean the challenge would succeed.
The order granted leave to apply for judicial review and continued a stay on any prosecution for the alleged offence. The court also directed that there was no need to issue a motion for substantive relief pending further case management. It listed the case remotely for 21 March 2022 to address case management, whether the matter should proceed to a plenary hearing, and the costs of the contested leave application.