{"id":433,"date":"2012-10-18T01:17:16","date_gmt":"2012-10-18T01:17:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/tc\/?p=433"},"modified":"2013-07-11T02:58:18","modified_gmt":"2013-07-11T02:58:18","slug":"the-australian-high-court-and-the-marlboro-man-the-plain-packaging-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/tc\/2012\/10\/18\/the-australian-high-court-and-the-marlboro-man-the-plain-packaging-decision\/","title":{"rendered":"The Australian High Court and the Marlboro Man: the plain packaging decision"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Matthew Rimmer<\/a>, Australian National University<\/em><\/span><\/h1>\n

The High Court of Australia\u2019s ruling on the plain packaging<\/a> of tobacco products is one of the great constitutional cases of our age. The ruling will resonate throughout the world \u2013 as other countries will undoubtedly seek to emulate Australia\u2019s plain packaging regime.<\/p>\n

Having announced its ruling<\/a> some weeks ago now, the court recently published the reasons for its decision on tobacco companies’ challenge to Australia\u2019s regime for the plain packaging of tobacco products.<\/p>\n

By a majority of six to one, the High Court of Australia rejected the arguments of the tobacco companies that there had been an acquisition of property under the Australian Constitution<\/a>. The majority judges variously described the case of the tobacco companies as \u201cdelusive\u201d, \u201csynthetic\u201d, \u201cunreal\u201d, and suffering \u201cfatal\u201d defects in logic and reasoning. The dissenting judgement was by Justice Heydon.<\/p>\n