Quach & Ors, R v

Sentences for commercial cannabis cultivation should reflect the offender’s role, the scale of the operation and the value of the cannabis. The sentencing framework in [2007] EWCA Crim 329 provides starting points of three years for low-level participants, six to seven years for those setting up and controlling individual operations, and three to seven years for managers. More severe sentences may be justified for those controlling a network of operations.

Where supported by evidence, a local prevalence of serious commercial cultivation may properly increase the deterrent element of sentence. A sentence must nevertheless remain proportionate to the offender’s proved role and personal mitigation.

The three appellants were convicted at Southampton Crown Court of conspiracy to produce cannabis. Nguyen was also convicted of offences involving criminal property and money transfers obtained by deception. They received sentences of ten years, six years and five years respectively for the conspiracy.

The prosecution case concerned a substantial cultivation operation involving several properties, sophisticated growing equipment, cannabis plants and evidence of dishonest property finance. The sentencing judge treated deterrence as important because of evidence of prevalent commercial cannabis factories in the Southampton area.

Each appellant appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether the sentences properly reflected their respective roles in the conspiracy when assessed under the sentencing guidance for large-scale cannabis cultivation.

1. The appeals were allowed in part. The sentences imposed for the conspiracy were excessive, although the operation was major, profitable and involved more than one possible centre of cannabis production.

2. The court applied the sentencing framework in R v Xu & Ors [2007] EWCA Crim 329. Starting points depend principally on role: three years for low-level participants; six to seven years for organisers controlling individual operations; and three to seven years for managers. Greater sentences may be appropriate for control of a larger network.

3. Nguyen was properly treated as an organiser who controlled more than one operation. Bui was properly treated as a manager, not a low-level worker, because he owned the principal property and was heavily involved in its operation. Quach was more than a gardener: he was involved in transporting the mature cannabis. Those findings justified substantial custodial sentences, but not the terms originally imposed.

4. The judge was entitled to take account of proven local prevalence of commercial cannabis cultivation when assessing deterrence. That factor did not displace the need for sentences proportionate to each appellant’s role.

5. The court quashed the conspiracy sentences and substituted eight years’ imprisonment for Nguyen, five years for Bui and four years for Quach.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In this judgment, [2008] EWCA Crim 2746, the court allowed the sentence appeals to the extent of quashing and reducing the conspiracy sentences.
• Southampton Crown Court: On 18 and 19 July 2007, before His Honour Judge Longbotham, the appellants were convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to produce cannabis; Nguyen was also convicted of financial offences.