Lunn, R v

For the offence of permitting premises to be used for smoking cannabis, a public-house manager’s breach may properly attract a substantially more severe sentence than equivalent conduct in a private home. Drug-taking in a public setting may normalise the activity and encourage others to participate; it may also be associated with drug dealing. The statutory maximum does not distinguish between drugs, but offences involving cannabis will often be less serious than section 8 offences concerning Class A drugs.

Sentence remains fact-sensitive. A sentencing judge may give little weight to an offender’s loss of the relevant managerial role where the seriousness of the proved offending warrants it. The judge may also assess a pre-sentence report against the facts found at trial without obtaining a further report.

The appellant, the manager of a public house, was convicted after trial at Birmingham Crown Court of permitting the premises to be used for smoking cannabis. He received 30 months’ imprisonment, with a concurrent three-month sentence for possessing cannabis.

The sentencing judge found that the strong and prolonged cannabis smoke, the evidence from the premises, and later evidence bearing on the appellant’s attitude justified the conclusion that he had permitted the conduct. The appellant appealed by leave of the single judge, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that insufficient weight had been given to the pre-sentence report and evidence from bar staff.

The central issue was whether the sentence was excessive in the circumstances found by the trial judge.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment for permitting a public house to be used for smoking cannabis was not excessive.

2. Under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1987, permitting cannabis smoking in a public house is normally substantially more serious than allowing it in a private home. A public house provides a public environment in which drug-taking may appear acceptable and may encourage others to take drugs. Drug use is also frequently associated with dealing. Although the Act makes no distinction in maximum penalty, cannabis cases will often be less serious than section 8 offences involving Class A drugs.

3. The court treated previous sentencing decisions concerning residential premises as capable of only the most general comparison. They did not show that this 30-month sentence was excessive, given the materially different setting and circumstances.

4. The appellant’s cessation as manager of the public house carried little weight. The sentencing judge was entitled to assess the pre-sentence report against the facts found at trial and was not required to obtain a further report. He had also given full reasons for rejecting the contention that the appellant had taken proper steps to prevent cannabis smoking.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against sentence dismissed in [2008] EWCA Crim 2082.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: on 17 March 2008, following trial before His Honour Judge Maxwell, the appellant was convicted of permitting a public house to be used for smoking cannabis and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, with a concurrent three-month sentence for possession of cannabis.