The High Court ruled that Charlene Heyns was being detained in accordance with law under Ireland’s mandatory hotel quarantine regime, rejecting her challenge to provisions of the Health Act 1947 as amended.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore gave the decision on 17 April 2021, following an inquiry into the lawfulness of Heyns’s detention directed three days earlier under Article 40.4 of the Constitution. He concluded that the challenged aspects of the Act were not invalid having regard to the Constitution.
The judge heard the inquiry on 16 and 17 April. Evidence included affidavits from Heyns’s solicitor, a virologist and three Department of Health officials, as well as oral evidence from public health adviser Dr Darina O’Flanagan, who was cross-examined and then re-examined.
Heyns’s counsel raised multiple grounds of challenge. These included arguments that the legislation did not describe mandatory hotel quarantine as detention, leaving Heyns without fair procedures, adequate rights or clear identification of her detainer. Counsel also challenged the adequacy of her certificate of detention and argued that section 38B was unconstitutional.
Other submissions concerned the length of quarantine and whether decision-makers had considered vaccination or prior infection. Heyns’s counsel argued that the statutory review process amounted to the administration of justice, lacked an oral hearing and legal representation, and should have been conducted by medical professionals rather than barristers. The process was also criticised for not providing access to reviewers’ earlier decisions and on other grounds. The decision records these as submissions; it does not set out the judge’s reasoning on each issue.
O’Moore said he was delivering the decision promptly without a full judgment or synopsis of reasons. He noted that the inquiry concerned an individual’s detention and that the legislation provided for release if a test taken on the 10th day of quarantine was not positive. Heyns had arrived in Ireland on 9 April, so release on 19 April was possible. Counsel for both sides agreed to this procedure.
The proceedings were listed for a remote hearing on 23 April to address outstanding matters. A postscript records that an order was made that day striking out the proceedings. The judgment was to be delivered on or before 24 June 2021.