Two Dublin women accused of resisting the mandatory hotel quarantine law after a trip to Dubai during the Covid pandemic have walked free from court.
Kirstie McGrath (34) with an address at St Anthony’s Road, Dublin 8 and Niamh Mulreany (29) from Scarlett Row, Essex Street West, Dublin 2, were both arrested on the afternoon of April 2nd 2021, at Terminal 2 in Dublin Airport.
The two mothers had refused to go to a designated hotel for the mandatory 14 days’ quarantine.
They had gone on a trip to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, where they claimed they intended to undergo cosmetic surgery but ultimately did not have the procedure.
However, on return to Ireland, they were charged with breaching section 38 of the Health (Amendment) Act 2021 for resisting being brought to quarantine, an offence which carried a fine of up to €2,000 and a month in jail.
The law had been temporarily in force at the time and aimed to halt the spread of Covid-19.
In a bid to stop the criminal proceedings, their lawyers had brought a legal challenge over the constitutionality of the legislation surrounding the mandatory hotel quarantine system.
It went all the way to the Supreme Court, which dismissed their action in September.
That opened the way for the criminal proceedings to continue, going to a full contested hearing at Dublin District Court on Tuesday.
The pair pleaded not guilty, and Judge John Hughes dismissed the case.
Explaining his ruling, he stated that the court had not heard any evidence that the penalties for failing to comply with the “complex and complicated” quarantine law had been outlined to the two women, as required.
In evidence, Air Corps officer Mark McLoughlin told Judge Hughes that he was on duty as terminal liaison officer and his role was to transfer passengers be quarantined at a designated hotel.
Garda Karl Carroll told the hearing that starting around 1pm, he spent 90 minutes talking to the two women and explaining the regulations.
He agreed with Mark Lynam SC, defending (instructed by solicitor Michael French) that they had pre-booked their places in the hotel, which had been required under the legislation. However, they refused to go there after returning from Dubai.
Garda Robert Barber was present, and he recalled that they said they would rather be arrested, and they claimed, “The people minding their children would not be able to keep minding them for much longer.”
He said they refused to change their minds and had “no choice but to arrest them”.
Mr Lynam submitted that his clients had committed no offence: there was no evidence that the UAE came under the restrictions or that his clients were resisting the quarantine law.
He argued that the law required that they should have been detained and an effort made to bring them to the designated hotel, and they could be prosecuted if they resisted at that point.
The prosecution argued that they resisted by refusing to comply.
Judge Hughes stressed that the court was not passing judgment on whether either defendant was responsible or reckless to themselves, their family or others for deciding to travel to Dubai at that time.
After considering the submissions and reviewing the evidence, he found that they resisted being detained after the officers invited them to the designated facility.
However, he cited a High Court ruling on the power of compulsion under the Public Order Act, where a garda can tell a person to desist in their behaviour and leave a location.
He said that where the power of compulsion is exercised, the officer must tell the person that failing to comply can result in criminal conviction and penalties.
In this instance, he added, the prosecution did not adduce that evidence; accordingly, he dismissed the charges, ending the four-year legal battle.
Neither woman gave evidence or addressed the court and simply smiled following their acquittal, which concluded their four-year legal battle.
.
