P.J. Carroll & Co. Ltd. v. Minister for Health and Children
Tobacco companies and a tobacco industrial association challenged advertising restrictions under the Ireland's tobacco control law, which they claimed violated the Constitution, European law, and the European Convention on Human Rights. The government argued that presentation of evidence on the health effects of tobacco was necessary to understand the purpose of the regulations. The Court allowed the government to bring evidence regarding the health impacts of tobacco products on minors.
P J Carroll Company & Company Limited, et al. v. Minister for Health and Children, et al., [2004] IEHC 310, High Court (2004).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
A discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Between paras. 32 and 37 of the defence, the defendants deal with restrictions on advertising. At para. 24 of the reply, each of the particulars relied upon by the defendants at paras. 32 to 37, and each and every alleged fact asserted therein as justifying the provisions of s. 33A of the Act, is denied. That denial appears to be inconsistent, to some extent at least, with the approach of the plaintiffs concerning admissions relating to other parts of the defence. That was accepted by counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs, who indicated that an appropriate amendment would be made so as to make admissions of the relevant facts contained between paras. 32 and 37. They would include, e.g. the assertion that there were reasonable grounds for the legislature to consider that more comprehensive restrictions on the advertising of tobacco products would better protect children and young people. They would also deal with its entitlements to have regard to the factors set out at paras. 35 (a) through (d), namely the report of the Tobacco Free Policy Groups' conclusions that the tobacco industry exploited the immaturity of young people when marketing their tobacco products; that advertising plays an important role in the promotion of tobacco products to young people; the 1999 Joint Committee Report statement that research demonstrates that 34 % of children in the 15 to 17 year age bracket smoke and that a significant number of children commence smoking at an age when they are not lawfully permitted to be sold cigarettes. On the present state of the pleadings, it appears to me, that the defendants are entitled to adduce evidence in relation to these matters but if an appropriate amendment as outlined by counsel in the course of argument were to be forthcoming, then obviously those facts would be rendered not to be in issue and evidence would not be permissible on them."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Tobacco companies and a tobacco industrial association challenged advertising restrictions under the Ireland's tobacco control law, which they claimed violated the Constitution, European law, and the European Convention on Human Rights. The government argued that presentation of evidence on the health effects of tobacco was necessary to understand the purpose of the regulations. The Court allowed the government to bring evidence regarding the health impacts of tobacco products on minors.