Wong, R. v

In sentencing for large-scale cannabis production, the court must assess the offender’s role, level of involvement and the scale and value of the operation. The manager sentencing range identified in earlier authority is not a guideline to be applied mechanically. An operation of an exceptionally serious scale may justify a higher starting point, even where the offender was not an organiser and received no large direct share of the proceeds.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Cardiff to being concerned in producing cannabis and to abstracting electricity. He was an employee in a sophisticated cannabis factory occupying a former hotel. His admitted functions included obtaining supplies, transporting persons involved in the enterprise, and collecting and delivering cannabis.

The operation involved more than 3,000 plants and a potential yield valued between £635,000 and more than £2 million. The appellant received five years and six months’ imprisonment for the production offence, with a concurrent 18-month sentence for abstracting electricity. He appealed against sentence, contending that its length was excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment for being concerned in producing cannabis was entirely appropriate.
2. The appellant was properly placed above the category of a worker or grower. On his accepted basis of plea, he performed managerial functions, including obtaining equipment and supplies, transporting those involved, and delivering cannabis. His bank account was also used to transfer substantial sums to Vietnam for the organisers, and his remuneration included the clearance of gambling debts.
3. The court applied the offender hierarchy and sentencing approach in R v Xiong Xu & Ors [2007] EWCA Crim 3129. That authority identified a starting range of three to seven years for managers, according to their involvement and the value of the cannabis produced, while making clear that it was not a guideline judgment.
4. The scale of this enterprise was materially more serious than the earlier comparator cases. It involved more than 3,000 plants and production at least six times greater, by plant numbers and wholesale value, than the most serious case considered in R v Xiong Xu & Ors [2007] EWCA Crim 3129. The scale of production justified a starting point of about eight years and the imposed sentence reflected that starting point appropriately.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appellant’s appeal against his sentence.
• Crown Court at Cardiff On 17 December 2007, imposed five years and six months’ imprisonment for being concerned in producing cannabis and 18 months’ imprisonment concurrently for abstracting electricity.