Lawson, R. v

Commercial cannabis production combined with possession with intent to supply may properly be sentenced as a Category 3 offence with a significant role where the offender organised a continuing operation for profit. The production and supply offences should be assessed together.

Sentencing comparisons must account for material differences between production-only cases and cases involving an admitted intention to supply. Aggravating features, including anticipated profit and purpose-bought equipment, must be balanced against an early guilty plea and relevant personal mitigation when fixing the custodial term.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Cardiff Crown Court to producing cannabis and possessing cannabis with intent to supply. A search found mature cannabis plants, cultivation equipment, harvested cannabis, scales and small plastic bags. The operation had a potential street value exceeding £5,500.

He received concurrent sentences of 16 months’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence, contending that the guideline starting point was too high, that mitigating factors had not been sufficiently reflected, and that a suspended sentence should have been considered.

The central issue was whether immediate custody was justified and, if so, whether 16 months was excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The 16-month sentence was quashed and replaced by concurrent terms of 12 months’ imprisonment.

2. The production and possession-with-intent-to-supply offences were properly considered together. This was not domestic cultivation for personal use. It was a relatively small commercial cannabis operation, intended to generate a not insignificant profit, in which the appellant was the organising farmer. It therefore fell within Category 3 of the applicable drug guideline, with a significant role. The appropriate starting point was 12 months’ imprisonment, within a range of 26 weeks to three years’ custody.

3. Immediate custody was warranted. The anticipated profit exceeding £5,000 and the continuing operation using purpose-bought equipment were aggravating features. The appellant’s early guilty plea and steps, or acquiescence in steps, towards addressing alcohol and cannabis dependency were mitigating matters, although the latter carried limited weight.

4. The court considered R v Healey & Ors [2012] EWCA Crim 1005 with care. That decision principally concerned production offences without an admitted intention to supply, so sentencing levels could not be compared without recognising the difference. On the present facts, about 18 months after a trial would have been appropriate. Proper credit for the guilty plea reduced that term to 12 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted concurrent sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment: [2012] EWCA Crim 1931.

• Cardiff Crown Court: Following guilty pleas to producing cannabis and possessing cannabis with intent to supply, imposed concurrent sentences of 16 months’ imprisonment on 4 May 2012.