Minimum price of 50p on alcohol sales approved by the Supreme Court – for Scotland

17 November 2017 by

Scotch Whisky Association  v Lord Advocate and Another (Scotland)  [2017] UKSC 76 – read judgment

The Supreme Court has ruled that the introduction of minimum pricing into the sales of alcohol in Scotland will not constitute a disproportionate measure interfering with the free movement of goods and competition in the EU. The initial legislation that paved the way for minimum pricing was approved by the Scottish parliament five years ago but has been under legal challenge since. The Scottish Parliament had decided to address the health and social consequences arising from the consumption of  cheap alcohol by a minimum pricing regime. They did this by inserting in the Scottish licensing legislation an additional condition that an alcohol product must not be sold at a price below a statutorily determined minimum price per unit of alcohol. The minimum price is to be set by secondary legislation. The current proposal is 50 pence per unit of alcohol.

The Scotch Whisky association sought judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the relevant Act. They contended that the minimum unit pricing was disproportionate under EU law.

The Scottish Ministers (the respondents in this case) argued that taxation, by contrast, would impose an “unintended and unacceptable burden” on sectors of the drinking population whose drinking habits and health do not represent a significant problem in societal terms in the same way as the drinking habits and health of the deprived, whose abuse of cheap alcohol the Scottish Parliament wished to target.

The case was referred to the Court of Justice of the EU for a preliminary ruling, following which ruling the Supreme Court heard the appeal. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, Lord Mance giving judgment. Minimum pricing was not in his view a disproportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Before the CJEU came up with its preliminary ruling, AG Bot analysed the question of proportionality via three steps:
(1) appropriateness
(2) necessity
(3) balancing of interests.
The CJEU conducted a two-stage analysis involving essentially the same elements. The test measured the justification of the measure to achieve a legitimate objective, in other words the protection of health under Article 34 TFEU, and whether it were possible to achieve this objective by measures that were less restrictive of the free movement of goods.

Reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s judgement

The Court accepted as the CJEU did that the aim of the respondents’ measure was not that alcohol consumption be eradicated or that its costs should be made prohibitive for drinkers. The aim was to strike at alcohol misuse and overconsumption manifesting themselves in particular in the health and social problems suffered by those in poverty in deprived communities. The Court rejected the Scotch Whisky Association’s submission that a tax would be a less restrictive way of achieving this objective.  Minimum pricing targets the health hazards of cheap alcohol and the groups most affected, in a way that an increase in VAT does not. An extra levy on tax would be felt across the board and

unnecessarily affected groups which are not the focus of the legislation [34-37]

It was clear to the Court that concern about the health and social harms resulting from extremely heavy drinking in deprived communities was an element of targeted thinking behind the 2012 Act.  Furthermore minimum pricing is simpler to enforce. It would not be open to absorption, for example by selling alcohol under cost in order to attract other business onto their premises.

As far as the proportionality of the measure itself is concerned, Lord Mance stressed that the courts, whether the CJEU or the domestic courts, should not second-guess the value that a domestic legislator puts on health. In the light of this, there was limited scope for the criticism made by the appellants about the lack of EU market evidence taken into account by the Scottish ministers when passing this legislation. The Whisky Association objected that the respondents had failed to produce appropriate evidence to justify the infringement of the EU legal prohibition on restrictions and measures inhibiting free trade.

But this was not incumbent on the Scottish ministers when formulating the policy. The comparison to be taken is between two incomparable values: (1) health and (2) the market and economic impact on producers, wholesalers and retailers of alcoholic drinks across the EU. The Court considered it legitimate

to balance any possible health advantages across the board against the unwanted burden which increased taxation across the board would impose on drinkers falling within the hazardous and harmful categories [of alcohol consumption] who are not (for reasons of affluence or whatever) at extreme risk and on moderate drinkers who are at no risk at all.

The role of a domestic court, evaluating the consistency with European law of a measure such as the 2012 Act, is not to examine or adjudicate upon the legislative process and reasoning which led to the measure, but “to examine the legislation itself in its context”. The Scottish Parliament and Government had decided to put very great weight on combatting alcohol-related mortality and hospitalisation and other forms of alcohol-related harm.

That was a judgement which it was for them to make, and their right to make it militates strongly against intrusive review by a domestic court

Finally the requirement within the legislation which triggered a review after five years, and the so called “Sunset Clause” that would cause it to expire after six years unless renewed by a ministerial decision,  showed that the proposals were explicitly provisional. The authorities would have to take stock of its effectiveness after a period of years. This requirement was relevant to the issue of proportionality.

The Insitute of Economic Affairs, a free market think tank,  did not welcome the Supreme Court’s conclusion, calling it “disappointing” and saying that minimum pricing was a policy that “clobbers the poor and exempts the rich”. Anti alcohol campaign groups on the other hand say that minimum pricing should be introduced in England and Wales as well, although attempts under David Cameron were defeated by concerted lobbying from the drinks industry.

Related posts


  1. Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
    Yet another restriction imposed by bureaucratic interference and another nail in the coffin of democratic freedom-of-choice – but the state coffers of Scotland will swell; for the benefit of the taxpayers?

  2. guyportman says:

    That Bargain Booze certainly utilises pernicious advertising methods. It seems only a matter of time before England follows Scotland’s lead. Perhaps the government could down on the rich too by introducing maximum alcohol pricing laws.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: