In light of admissions made by a number of tobacco companies in their forthcoming challenge to new regulations restricting tobacco advertising, a High Court judge has directed that the State is not required to call extensive oral evidence regarding the effects of tobacco on public health in the challenge.
Mr Justice Kelly yesterday pointed out that a case involving tobacco litigation in Canada, one in which admissions were also made by the companies, had run for some six months.
"I would be slow to replicate a hearing of the dimensions encountered by the Canadian court, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so."
It could not be said that the plaintiffs in their reply in the Irish proceedings had not admitted the health effects of smoking and/or exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, he believed.
"In my view, it would be a waste of public time and money to permit the adducing of unnecessary evidence."
He directed that areas specifically admitted in the reply of the companies may not be the subject of evidence being led, including the nature of tobacco and its health effects.
While the present state of the evidence would allow evidence to be adduced regarding restrictions on advertising, the judge noted the plaintiffs had indicated an appropriate amendment would be made to make appropriate admissions in that regard. He adjourned the matter to today to allow that be done.
In the hearing before the Commercial Court, a division of the High Court, which will start later this year at a date yet to be fixed, the State had sought to call wide-ranging oral evidence on a large number of issues, including the public health effects of tobacco consumption and the past conduct of the tobacco industry in relation to the acknowledgement of the dangerous and addictive nature of tobacco.
The State contended this evidence was necessary to address the companies' claims that the legislation amounted to a disproportionate interference with the companies' constitutional rights.
In its defence in the action, the State argues that to the extent there has been such an interference, it is justified having regard to the harmful effects of tobacco on public health.
The companies had argued that the detailed evidence which the State wished to call was neither relevant nor admissible. They said they had, for the purpose of the proceedings, not disputed the health consequences of the consumption of tobacco products relied on by the State.