Source
A UK CBD business, Ocean Development (Dorset) Ltd., and its affiliate, CBD Flower Shop Ltd., have filed a £3.4 million lawsuit against the UK government, alleging unlawful seizure of hemp shipments by Border Force. The companies claim the seizures were based on a misclassification of hemp as illegal cannabis, despite Ocean Development holding a licence from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to import raw hemp since July 2023.
The High Court claim, filed on 15th August 2024, alleges that the Home Office, which oversees Border Force, violated the company’s human rights by interfering with its peaceful enjoyment of property. The seized hemp was intended for sale as tea through CBD Flower Shop, and the companies argue that the product contains no tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or only trace amounts, falling outside the definition of a controlled drug.
The claim criticises the government’s enforcement system as disproportionate, stating that it automatically leads to the seizure of legal hemp. The Woods, owners of the companies, argue that the system should be designed to prevent unnecessary interference with legal goods and that Border Force’s justification for the seizures is “baseless.”
Between August 2023 and May 2024, Border Force reportedly seized 10 shipments of hemp, causing financial losses. CBD Flower Shop claims over £3.1 million in lost goodwill, in addition to damages for the seized hemp and harm to Ocean Development’s reputation.
The case raises broader legal and regulatory issues, including the definition of controlled substances, the proportionality of enforcement measures, and the protection of property rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. If successful, the lawsuit could influence UK hemp regulations, potentially leading to clearer guidelines for distinguishing hemp from controlled drugs and reforming Border Force’s practices.
Key points of law that might influence UK hemp regulation:
Licensing for hemp imports
Ocean Development obtained a licence from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to import raw hemp. This case underscores the importance of clarifying and harmonising licensing requirements for hemp imports. Any changes to licensing procedures or enforcement practices could directly affect the UK hemp industry.
Definition of controlled substances
Border Force allegedly seized shipments of hemp on the grounds that they contained controlled drugs. The claimant argues that hemp falls outside the legal definition of a narcotic drug. If the court rules in favour of Ocean Development, this could establish a precedent for how hemp and its derivatives are classified and treated under UK law.
Proportionality of enforcement measures
Ocean Development claims that the current system for controlling cannabis is disproportionate, as it leads to legal hemp being seized unnecessarily. If the court agrees, it might prompt reforms to the system, such as:
- Improved guidelines for distinguishing legal hemp from controlled substances.
- Streamlined procedures to avoid undue seizure and condemnation processes.
- Human Rights Implications
The claim includes allegations that the Home Office violated the business’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, as protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A ruling on this point could set a legal standard for balancing enforcement with business rights.
Potential for judicial review of administrative actions
The case challenges the administrative actions of Border Force and the Home Office. A judgment against the Home Office could lead to more stringent judicial oversight of how agencies enforce laws regarding hemp and cannabis.
Impact on business and goodwill
The case highlights significant financial losses due to damage to goodwill and seized goods. This raises the issue of compensatory claims and how businesses can seek redress for enforcement errors. A favourable ruling for Ocean Development could set a precedent for similar claims by other businesses in the hemp sector.
Legal distinction between hemp and cannabis
The claim reiterates that hemp contains negligible amounts of THC and is not psychoactive, distinguishing it from high THC cannabis. Clarifying this distinction in legal terms could lead to amendments in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or related regulations.
Future regulation of CBD products
Since CBD is not a controlled substance, the case may influence how the UK regulates CBD-containing products. The judgment could lead to clearer regulatory frameworks for importing, marketing, and selling CBD products.
Potential outcomes:
- Policy Reforms: Changes in Border Force’s enforcement policies regarding hemp imports.
- Legal Precedents: Court rulings that redefine the treatment of hemp under UK law.
- Regulatory Clarity: Amendments to UK legislation, such as the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, to ensure hemp and CBD businesses are not unfairly targeted.
The companies are represented by Josh Normanton of Trinity Chambers and Robert Jappie of Fieldfisher LLP. The Home Office is represented by the Government Legal Department. The case, titled Ocean Development (Dorset) and another v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, is currently pending in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales under case number KB-2024-002634.
This case could serve as a catalyst for a broader review of the UK’s regulatory approach to hemp and cannabis-related industries, and the outcome of the case could set important precedents for the legal treatment of hemp and CBD products in the UK.
Source: https://www.cannabistrades.org/articles/cbd-flower-company-sues-uk-government
