Herridge, R. v

Cultivation of cannabis for personal use ordinarily passes the custodial threshold because it involves calculated defiance of the law, even on a small scale. However, sentencing must reflect the wide range of culpability under section 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Following cannabis reclassification, a wider sentencing distinction is justified between cultivation involving supply and cultivation solely for personal use. Parliament preserved the higher penalties for Class C supply offences, but reduced the maximum for simple possession. That distinction may properly reduce the custodial term for personal-use cultivation, although it does not make a non-custodial sentence generally appropriate.

The respondent pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to cultivating 52 cannabis plants, contrary to section 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The plants were grown using ventilation, heating and extractor equipment. It was accepted that the intended crop was consistent with his own use, rather than supply.

His Honour Judge Ball QC imposed 12 months’ imprisonment on 11 February 2005. The respondent appealed against sentence with permission from the single judge. The central issue was whether cannabis reclassification as a Class C drug should reduce sentences for cultivation undertaken solely for personal use.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the 12-month sentence and substituted six months’ imprisonment.

2. Section 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 covers conduct ranging from commercial, industrial-scale cultivation to small-scale growing for personal use. Cultivation, even for personal use, requires a significant element of calculated defiance of the law. It will therefore ordinarily attract an immediate custodial sentence rather than a non-custodial disposal.

3. The court accepted that earlier sentencing decisions indicated a usual range of six to nine months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea where cultivation was solely for personal use. The original sentence did not properly reflect the respondent’s mitigation, including his early guilty plea and steps to address his cannabis use.

4. Under section 284 and Schedule 28 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Parliament increased the penalties for Class C supply offences to the former Class B levels. This showed that reclassification did not warrant lower sentences where cultivation involved supply. The unchanged 14-year maximum for cultivation also prevented any general conclusion that the offence had become less serious.

5. Nevertheless, the reduced maximum penalty for simple possession, read with the statutory treatment of supply, justified a wider sentencing gap between cultivation for supply and cultivation exclusively for personal use. A six-month term properly reflected that principle and the particular mitigation in this case.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted six months’ imprisonment: [2005] EWCA Crim 1410.
• Chelmsford Crown Court: His Honour Judge Ball QC imposed 12 months’ imprisonment on a guilty plea to cultivation of cannabis.