Key Facts
- •Three respondents were charged with fraudulent evasion of importation prohibition of cannabis and supply of cannabis.
- •The imported cannabis sativa had a THC content not exceeding 0.2%.
- •The Recorder stayed the prosecution, arguing it wasn't a criminal offence under Article 34 TFEU.
- •The prosecution appealed on three grounds: Article 34 TFEU's applicability, justification under Article 36 TFEU, and whether to follow the CJEU decision in BS, CA.
- •The Respondents imported and sold cannabis sativa from Italy, where its cultivation was legal.
- •The imported material was intercepted due to the smell of cannabis.
- •The prosecution did not argue Article 36 justification before the Recorder.
Legal Principles
Article 34 TFEU prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports and measures with equivalent effect.
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Article 36 TFEU allows exceptions to Article 34 for prohibitions or restrictions justified on grounds of public morality, policy, security, health, etc., but these must not be arbitrary discrimination or disguised restrictions.
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
The 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA 1971) define and control cannabis.
UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961; Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
Regulations 1307/2013 and 1308/2013 set out rules for direct payments to farmers and the common organisation of agricultural markets, including hemp with THC content limitations.
Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013; Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013
CJEU case law (Hammarsten and BS, CA) interprets the interaction between EU free movement of goods principles and national drug control laws concerning cannabis.
CJEU Case C-462/01 (Hammarsten); CJEU Case C-663/13 (BS, CA)
Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 governs appeals against terminating rulings in criminal cases.
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Recorder's factual findings regarding the imported material's classification as 'raw hemp' under Regulations 1307/2013 and 1308/2013, coupled with the CJEU decision in Hammarsten, support the application of Article 34 TFEU. The prosecution failed to advance an Article 36 justification before the Recorder.
Respondents acquitted.
The prosecution's appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered the respondents' acquittal under section 61(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.