Father and son refused further appeal over Covid movement penalty notices

High Court reporters

A father and son have been refused a further appeal over their failed challenge to €2,000 fixed penalty notices they received for allegedly breaching Covid regulations by travelling to Dublin Airport in 2021.

The Supreme Court refused to allow a further appeal to Nicolae and Florin Mazarache, of Lealand Meadows, Clondalkin, Dublin, who were issued with the fixed penalty when they were travelling to Spain to visit family members on April 17th, 2021.

They were stopped at Dublin Airport by a garda and later issued with the notices alleging they had "committed an offence of movement of persons" at a port or airport contrary to the 1947 Health Act (as amended).

A fixed payment of €2,000 was applied and if not paid within 28 days they would have to go before the District Court where, if convicted, could have faced a fine of up to €4,000 and/or one month's imprisonment, or both.

The Mazaraches chose not to pay the fixed penalty but instead brought judicial review proceedings.

They claimed, among other things, that there was a fundamental unfairness in the failure of the fixed notices they received to either specify or particularise the offence they were alleged to have committed.

They contended the notices were invalid and the State should be restrained from any offence arising out of their failure to make the fixed payments.

The respondents, the Garda Commissioner, the DPP, and the Minister for Health, opposed the challenge.

In February 2024, the High Court dismissed their challenge and also lifted an injunction halting their prosecution in the District Court.

The Mazaraches appealed, and in October last year, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

In November 2025, the DPP informed them there would be no prosecution.

They then sought a further appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it was a matter of general public importance.

Public importance

In written determinations on both applications for appeal, the Supreme Court said the overarching matter of general public importance alleged by them is that it relates to “a new enforcement mechanism in criminal law”.

The Mazaraches argued that the High Court or the Court of Appeal did not address apparent conflicts between certain previous judgments which indicated the parameters of the District Court’s discretion.

They also argued they should not face trial on an offence which was never specified in the fixed penalty notice served on them and that it would not in accordance with law and therefore not be in the interests of justice.

The respondents argued this was a case which involved a specific statutory regime which was put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic on public health grounds. It has since lapsed.

They said the regime provided for the discretionary issuing of fixed payment notices as an alternative to prosecution for some of the offences under the Health Act 1947, and therefore functions differently from more established mandatory fixed charge notices.

It was also pointless now, or moot, as a direction had been issued not to prosecute them, it was also argued.

The Supreme Court, in refusing a further appeal, said there was no question of any injustice being visited on the Mazaraches as there will now be no prosecution of them. As of November 2025, the court said, the proceedings became moot.

The two had also not identified any other type of offence in respect of which this particular “new enforcement mechanism” applies.