Darshan Patel v R

The statutory definition of cannabis covers the plant and its parts, subject to specified exclusions, without imposing a THC threshold. Importation, possession and supply of cannabis are therefore prohibited under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Free-movement rights under articles 34 and 36 TFEU ceased to have direct effect in the United Kingdom after 31 December 2020. A guilty plea is not vitiated by legal advice unless an omitted defence would probably have succeeded and clear injustice resulted. A plea entered without qualification remains unequivocal even if made to obtain a sentencing indication. The statutory prohibition was sufficiently clear for Article 7 purposes.

The appellant pleaded guilty to four offences involving the importation and supply of cannabis products and was sentenced to concurrent suspended terms of 14 months’ imprisonment. He appealed against conviction, arguing that low-THC cannabis was not a controlled drug in light of R v Margiotta and others [2023] EWC Crim 759, that his pleas were vitiated by incorrect legal advice under R v Tredget [2022] EWCA Crim 108, and that the law breached Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The central issues were whether the relevant products fell within the statutory definition of cannabis, whether the pleas were unsafe, and whether the applicable criminal law was sufficiently clear.

The court dismissed the appeal.

1. EU law and cannabis. Articles 34 and 36 TFEU ceased to have direct effect in the United Kingdom after 31 December 2020. They could not therefore assist in relation to the later importations. The court also observed that the factual contexts in Criminal proceedings against Hammarsten [2003] ECR 1-781 and BS, CA [2021] 2 CMLR 5 differed materially from this case. Bogusas v Minister for Health and others [2022] IEHC 621 provided strong support for the view that unauthorised trade in cannabis did not engage those provisions. The court expressed concern that Margiotta had not considered Bogusas, but it was unnecessary to decide whether Margiotta was reached per incuriam. It was distinguishable because its decision depended on evidence that the THC content was below 0.2%. No admissible evidence established that fact here.
2. Guilty pleas. The categories identified in Tredget were accepted. A conviction following a guilty plea may be unsafe where the plea is equivocal or vitiated, there is a legal obstacle to trial, or the defendant did not commit the offence. Erroneous advice or failure to advise about a defence vitiates a plea only where the defence would probably have succeeded and clear injustice resulted, applying R v Boal [1992] QB 591. The appellant had been properly advised about the available defences and the effect of the police warning. He could not properly have been advised that either defence would probably succeed. His pleas were entered without qualification. The fact that he sought a sentencing indication and wished to avoid immediate imprisonment did not make them equivocal.
3. Article 7. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 clearly defined cannabis without reference to a particular THC level and prohibited its importation, possession and supply. The appellant had also received an explicit warning. The law was therefore sufficiently clear, although unwelcome to him, and Article 7 was not infringed.

Each ground of appeal was rejected.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against conviction was dismissed on 1 July 2025, with written reasons handed down on 5 September 2025.
2. Crown Court at Swindon — Following guilty pleas to counts 2–5, the appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of 14 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months.