Rattu, R. v

Sentencing must adhere to an accepted basis of plea. In a large-scale cannabis-production operation, an offender who became involved only on arrival at the premises and performed a limited task of moving plants may fall below the lowest-level "gardener" category identified in Xu, [2008] 2 Cr. App. R (S) 50.

The starting point must reflect that limited and late involvement. A sentence founded on a starting point that does not sufficiently allow for it is manifestly excessive and may be reduced on appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton to being concerned in the production of cannabis, a class B drug. He was one of three men arrested at commercial premises containing a sophisticated cannabis factory with approximately 1,100 plants.

His accepted basis of plea was that he had attended believing that there was a cleaning job, learned on arrival that cannabis was involved, and then agreed for financial gain to move bags of plants from upstairs to downstairs. The sentencing judge imposed 23 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, the issue was whether the judge had given adequate effect to the basis of plea and to the appellant’s limited role when fixing the starting point and crediting his guilty plea.

1. Appeal allowed. The court substituted 15 months’ imprisonment for the sentence of 23 months.

2. The sentencing judge was required to sentence on the accepted basis of plea. It established that the appellant had not participated in the factory before the night of his arrest. He had attended for an apparently innocent purpose and only then agreed, for financial gain, to assist in moving cannabis plants.

3. The guidance in Xu, [2008] 2 Cr. App. R (S) 50, treated the lowest-level participants in a large cannabis operation as workers who tend, grow and harvest plants on the instructions of those running the operation. Although the appellant’s task was lowly and menial, his involvement was lower still. Unlike a gardener who had attended repeatedly, he had no prior opportunity to appreciate the nature and scale of the operation.

4. A starting point of 27 months did not sufficiently reflect that distinction. A starting point of about 18 months, reduced to 15 months for the guilty plea, was appropriate. Credit for remand and electronically monitored curfew was to continue.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: On 9 December 2010, imposed 23 months’ imprisonment following the appellant’s guilty plea.