The High Court has relaxed the bail conditions for two women arrested for refusing to enter mandatory hotel quarantine after returning from a trip to Dubai on Friday.
The ruling, which reduces the financial element of the bail, will allow the women to leave prison on condition they enter a designated quarantine hotel.
The judge also declined the women's application to be allowed quarantine at at home so they could be re-united with their children.
The judge said that in light of the public health situation caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and the measures put in place to reduce new variations of the virus, they must quarantine at the hotel.
The women have now left the Women's Prison at Mountjoy.
Niamh Mulreany and Kirstie Mc Grath were arrested and charged with breaching Section 38 of the Health (Amendment) Act 2021 by refusing to be detained in quarantine following their alleged refusal to go the designated hotel last Friday.
They were granted bail by the District Court on Saturday, but were unable to meet the financial conditions of the bail and were taken to prison.
This morning they brought a High Court challenge under Article 40.4.2 of the constitution to the legality of their continued detention.
That challenge has now been changed to a constitutional challenge against the mandatory hotel quarantine laws.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
Lawyers for the DPP and the prison's governor opposed the application and had argued that their detention was valid.
They also argued that while they were not unsympathetic to the situations that the two women found themselves in, the mandatory quarantine was introduced in the interest of the greater public good to help counter Covid-19.
The mandatory quarantine had been introduced by the state following advice from experts, the court heard,
The two women attended the hearing via video link from the prison. The court heard that they had travelled to the UAE, where they were due to - but ultimately did not - undergo cosmetic procedures.
The court also heard that the trips and procedures were birthday presents funded by the women's respective families and friends.
The pair were granted bail by the District Court on Saturday, on terms including that they remain in the hotel, and that they provide their own bond of €800, of which €500 must be lodged.
They also had to provide an independent surety of €2,000, of which €1,800 had to be lodged. They were also to reside at the designated hotel, surrender their passports and not leave the jurisdiction.
However, the High Court heard that neither woman was able to take up bail resulting in their detention in prison.
Their lawyers argued that their detention was not lawful.
Counsel said the bail conditions imposed by the district court, given the circumstances, were "draconian and disproportionate".
The women have no previous convictions, and had tested negative for Covid-19 following three recent tests, he added.
Their mandatory quarantine, which his clients were not aware of before they left for Dubai, amounted to a form of preventative detention for which there is no lawful basis.
Counsel said Ms McGrath of St Anthony's Road, Rialto Dublin 7 is the mother of children aged 10 and 8 years, and is the recipient of lone parents' allowance.
Her trip to Dubai was a 30th birthday present funded by family and friends.
She was due to undergo a cosmetic medical procedure, which she believed would assist her in addressing some personal matters
Counsel said that Ms McGrath's mother, who has taken leave from her job, has been looking after her two children. However, her mother must return to work in the coming days.
Niamh Mulreany, who also celebrated her 25th birthday in March, also had her trip funded by a family member as a gift.
Ms Mulreany of Scarlett Row, Essex Street West, Dublin 2, who previously had breast enhancement surgery, had travelled with the intention of undergoing a corrective procedure carried out in Dubai.
She too did not go ahead with the procedure. She is also in receipt of the lone parent allowance.
When they attempted to return to Ireland from Dubai on 31 March, they were informed that they must pay €1,850 in order to quarantine at a hotel upon arrival in Dublin.
They were not able to pay that sum, and were told in Dubai that if they did not pre-book the hotel and pay, they would be denied passage to Dublin.
They were not allowed board flights to Dublin for two days. Following presentations from a public representative and the Irish consulate in UAE, they agreed to make deferred payments for the hotel.
They had also believed that their children could stay with them in the hotel. However, when they returned to Ireland, they were told they would have to pay the fee and that their children could not stay with them.
Arising out of that they allegedly refused to go to the designated hotel because they could not afford the fee, and over concerns for their children.
In reply Mr Gallagher for the Governor said that information about the mandatory quarantine was put in the public domain the day before the women travelled to Dubai on 24 March.
In all the circumstances counsel said that both women were validly detained.
Following talks between the sides the state parties, represented by Kate Egan Bl and John Gallagher Bl, agreed that the financial conditions of their bail could be relaxed.
But an issue remained as to whether or not they could quarantine at their homes or at the designated hotel.
In his decision Mr Justice Burns agreed with the state that the two must quarantine at the hotel.
He granted the two bail on condition that they be of good behaviour and that there be a cash bond of €100, with no lodgement required.
He added that the two may not have to spend the 14 days at the hotel, as there is an appeal mechanism included as part of the 2021 Act which they can avail of.
The judge also noted that there was also a waiver scheme in the Act for persons who cannot afford to pay the costs of quarantining in the hotel.
He warned them that any breach of the quarantine could see them back in the same position that they had found themselves in.
The case will return before the court later this month.