The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by Andrius Bogusas over Irish restrictions on hemp oil containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and over Customs’ seizure and forfeiture of a package invoiced as containing 215 vials.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens delivered judgment on 26 October 2022. The applicant argued that EU free movement rules entitled him to import and sell hemp oil containing up to 0.2% THC, a threshold he associated with EU rules for hemp grown as an agricultural crop. He sought an order requiring the Minister for Health to review the restrictions and assess whether a THC threshold should be allowed. He also sought to have the seizure and forfeiture set aside and the vials returned.
The court held that the applicant could not rely on EU free movement law to require unrestricted public sale of preparations containing THC. It found that THC is a controlled psychoactive substance and that Article 7 of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances requires its use to be prohibited except for scientific and very limited medical purposes under strict controls. The court said the EU judgment in Kanavape concerned cannabidiol (CBD), and did not establish a right to market preparations containing THC.
The judgment also considered the evidence on health risks. It referred to Irish testing of hemp-based products, which found THC in 84% of the products tested; 14 of 38 could deliver doses significantly above the European Food Safety Authority’s acute reference dose at the maximum stated dosage. The court concluded that the applicant had not produced evidence showing that Ireland’s restrictions were unwarranted. It said that, even if EU free movement rules applied, the restrictions were justified on public health grounds.
On the package, Customs seized the goods on 21 October 2020 after tests found THC. The invoice described “PH Drops 10ml 10% 1000mg / HMP oil”. The judgment noted there was no direct evidence of the THC level in those vials; they were unlabelled and lacked a statement of their composition. The court said the package was not seized because it contained CBD, and that the substance in the form found could not lawfully be imported by the applicant.
The court dismissed the seizure challenge on a separate procedural ground. It found that the application was made after the judicial review time limit and that the applicant had not shown good and sufficient reason to extend it. The court therefore dismissed the application, including the request to compel the Minister to revisit the restrictions. The judgment does not order return of the vials.