The High Court has refused an application challenging the Government’s power to declare substances controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. The ruling leaves in place the order covering methylethcathinone and does not decide the criminal charges against Stanislav Bederev, whose District Court trial remains adjourned pending the outcome of these proceedings.
Mr Bederev was charged at Blanchardstown District Court on 26 April 2012 with offences under sections 3, 15 and 27 of the Act relating to possession and possession with intent to sell controlled substances. The charge sheets were amended on 8 October 2012, changing the substance named from mephedrone to methylethcathinone. That substance was declared controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 (Controlled Drugs)(Declaration) Order 2011.
In the High Court, Mr Bederev sought a declaration that section 2(2) of the Act was invalid under Article 15 of the Constitution, which reserves law-making power to the Oireachtas. Alternatively, he argued that the 2011 order was invalid and sought an injunction against his prosecution. His counsel submitted that the Act gave the Government too broad a discretion to determine which substances would attract criminal liability, without sufficient principles and policies set by the Oireachtas.
The State argued that the Act’s purpose and wider scheme supplied adequate guidance. It relied on the long title’s stated aim of preventing the misuse of dangerous or harmful drugs, the Act’s schedules and offences, the technical and changing nature of drug control, and the Oireachtas’s power to annul orders under section 38(3).
Mr Justice Gilligan considered evidence from a Department of Health chief pharmacist about how emerging substances were assessed, including consultation with health, forensic and law-enforcement bodies. The judge concluded that the Act, read as a whole and in its historical context, contained adequate principles and policies to guide the Government’s discretion. The court also noted the Oireachtas’s power of review and annulment and found the legislation sufficiently clear in identifying substances through schedules and statutory instruments.
The court refused the relief sought. It did not rule on Mr Bederev’s guilt or determine the drug charges; the judgment states that the District Court trial stands adjourned pending the outcome of these proceedings.