Last year the Dail passed the law which allowed gardai to detain people for seven days if they were suspected of drug-trafficking. Previously, the maximum length of detention without charge was 48 hours, which could only be used against people suspected of using firearms or explosives.
The seven-day detention for suspected drugs-traffickers stands out as an extraordinary measure which was opposed by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. It contrasts with the law on detaining someone suspected of a murder where no firearm has been used.
A man suspected of strangling or stabbing a woman or child can only be detained for questioning for 12 hours. A person found in possession of a relatively modest amount of hashish can be held for questioning for seven days.
The seven-day detention for suspected serious drugs offences is contained in Nora Owen's Criminal Justice (Drugs Trafficking) Act of 1996.
It was not one of the pieces of legislation rushed into law after the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin. Ms Owen had decided on the legislation in early 1995 and the Bill and Act had a full examination by the Oireachtas including the acceptance of an amendment.
Two parts of the Act have caused trouble over the last week. The first is contained in the actual introductory part of the legislation - the "interpretation" part - where terms and devices are explained.
One of these states that the President of the District Court may nominate other District Court judges for the purpose of hearing applications for the detention of suspects.
This part comes into play when gardai have already held a suspect for 48 hours and want to hold him or her for a further three days. The gardai must apply to a District Court judge for this further three-day detention.
Last Saturday gardai from the National Drugs Unit had five suspects in custody, in connection with the seizure of 300 kg of cannabis, and wanted a further three days to question them. They informed the District Court and successfully - it seemed - applied to Judge Windle for the extension.
When, three days later, the gardai returned to court to apply for another two days' detention the problems began.
It quickly emerged that Judge Windle had not been "nominated" by the President of the District Court, Judge Smithwick, as one of his judges assigned to do this job. The gardai were not aware of this at the time.
The suspects were released by the gardai, who immediately applied again to the District Court for warrants for their arrest. These were granted and three men were picked up again and brought back to the court.
This was when the second problem occurred.
There are two parts of the same Act which deal with the issue of arresting and re-arresting suspects.
The first is a provision which ensures that gardai cannot re-arrest suspects for the sake of questioning them. This is to prevent them abusing the power of arrest by re-arresting a suspect over and over for the purpose of prolonged interrogation.
However, there is another provision allowing gardai to re-arrest someone for the purpose of bringing them straight to court, without further questioning, to face charges. It states that the gardai can re-arrest a suspect "for the purpose of charging him or her with that offence forthwith".
In this respect the Drug Trafficking Act is identical to the 1988 Criminal Justice Act which covers procedures for arrest in most types of criminal cases.
When Judge Early questioned the two provisions in the Act during the week, there was speculation that an extreme application of his views could mean that almost everyone brought before the courts under the relevant part of the 1988 Act would have been unlawfully detained and have to be released. This could have emptied the State's prisons.
The High Court yesterday decided the arrest provisions in the Act were legitimate and the gardai had acted properly.