Sinclair Collis Ltd. v. Lord Advocate for Scotland

A tobacco vending machine company challenged the legality of a section of a tobacco control law prohibiting tobacco vending machines. The petitioner argued that the law violates the right to free movement of goods between EU member states and infringes their right to property.  In this appellate decision, the court looked to the treaties in addition to European Court of Justice and UK case law to test the proportionality of the Scottish law.  Agreeing with the lower court’s finding that the law was necessary and appropriate to the goal of protecting the health and safety of young people, the court upheld the ban on vending machines for tobacco products.

Sinclair Collis LTD v. The Lord Advocate [2012] CSIH 80 P576/10

  • United Kingdom
  • Oct 10, 2012
  • Extra Division, Inner House, Court of Session

Parties

Plaintiff Sinclair Collis LTD

Defendant The Lord Advocate of Scotland

Legislation Cited

Tobacco and Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010

International/Regional Instruments Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"The Government and Parliament had a substantial quantity of material to demonstrate the dangers of smoking by young persons, especially relative to their health in later life. They had a legitimate objective in reducing that smoking. The material demonstrated that many young persons obtained cigarettes from vending machines, which had no age‐restriction mechanisms to prevent purchase. It was an appropriate or suitable step, as part of a wider effort to reduce smoking, to stop young persons from obtaining cigarettes from that source. The material available suggested that age‐restriction mechanisms were not effective in respect that, even in a relatively calm environment, 20% of attempts by young persons to secure a purchase were successful. The Government and Parliament were entitled to the view therefore that such mechanisms were not effective to prevent sales to under eighteens and that only a complete prohibition would secure the legitimate objective of reducing sales by cutting off one source of supply. They were entitled to the view that the ingenuity of youth was quite adequate to circumvent age‐restriction mechanisms, especially in dark, busy public houses and night clubs. The court does not consider that the Government or Parliament required to conduct a series of empirical scientific experiments to establish the obvious but, in any event, the statistical material, flawed in parts as it might have been, was sufficient to justify this type of conclusion."