The High Court has dismissed Denise Lynch’s judicial review challenge to Ireland’s controls on products containing THC, holding that even preparations with low levels of the compound do not benefit from EU free-movement-of-goods rules.
In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2024, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the European Court of Justice’s 2020 Kanavape ruling did not establish a general 0.2% THC threshold for finished products. The ruling concerned a specific French restriction on CBD extracted from the entire cannabis plant rather than only its fibre and seeds. The ECJ left it to the national court to assess the substance’s effects in light of scientific knowledge, the High Court said.
The court also relied on the rejection in December 2020 of a proposed amendment to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs that would have exempted preparations containing predominantly CBD and no more than 0.2% THC from international controls. Mr Justice Simons concluded that a substance or preparation containing even a low level of THC fell within the Convention’s concept of a narcotic drug and was not a “good” entitled to Article 34 free-movement protection.
Lynch owns D. Hemp Shop at 17 Market Street, Cootehill, County Cavan. Gardaí executed search warrants at the shop and her home on 24 September 2021, with food and health-products officials also present. Various products were seized, including CBD oils, hemp protein and CBD coffee. Some were later returned, while others were sent to Forensic Science Ireland. The court noted that no admissible evidence had been produced to show that the seized finished products contained less than 0.2% THC.
The judgment records that Lynch is charged with alleged offences relating to possession of cannabis and cannabis resin, including possession for sale or supply. Those criminal proceedings are pending before the District Court. The judicial review did not seek relief concerning those proceedings, and the applicant no longer pursued relief to quash the search warrants.
The court also rejected the applicant’s constitutional and human-rights arguments about her ability to earn a livelihood, finding them insufficiently substantiated. It dismissed the judicial review application in its entirety. The judge’s provisional view was that the respondents should recover their costs; a further hearing could be arranged if a party sought a different costs order by 20 September 2024. The judgment does not record a final costs order.