virtually any measure which a government takes to restrict the availability of tobacco products, especially to young people, is almost self-evidently one with which no court should interfere.Although stating that DoH statistics were 'little more than guesses', His Lordship reckons that the government has no case to answer simply by virtue of being government promoting health. Regardless of the number of jobs at stake, there is no point in anyone even trying to bring a case against the government because ... yes ...
virtually any measure which a government takes to restrict the availability of tobacco products, especially to young people, is almost self-evidently one with which no court should interfere.Some of the public commenting in both the Daily Mail and the Sun (and no doubt elsewhere) struggle to understand why age-restriction technology (for instance radio-controlled vending machines) may not be used. It may not be 100 per cent fool proof (although it probably comes quite close) but neither is banning vending machines. The children and young adults of the future won't even miss them – they are too expensive even for adults to use as a regular source of supply.
It seems that all you have to do is come up with an idea to improve public health, and bring children into the discussion, and the courts won't even bother listening to any of your adversaries. Self-evidently. But when jobs are at stake, surely guesswork isn't enough.
I thought the whole point of having three arms of government (the separation of powers) was to protect the integrity of government by ensuring that each arm did its job properly.
Imperial Tobacco intends to appeal to the Supreme Court.