R v Arjon Osmani & Anor

In sentencing for cannabis production, a defendant’s role is assessed by the guideline’s culpability factors, separately from the harm category. A limited function under direction, exploitation, lack of influence and only a limited expectation of financial advantage point to a lesser role. Mere knowledge of the number of plants or the operation’s scale cannot, by itself, make the role significant, since the size of the grow already determines harm and double counting must be avoided. Acting for financial gain is insufficient without an expectation of significant advantage. Unlawful abstraction of electricity is not a significant aggravating factor where the defendant’s knowledge is not proved.

Two Albanian men appealed, with leave, against sentences imposed at Exeter Crown Court after guilty pleas at a plea and trial preparation hearing. Each pleaded guilty to producing Class B cannabis contrary to section 4(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. They had been found living in a lockup used as a cannabis factory, with 117 mature plants and electricity siphoned from a substation.

The recorder treated their culpability as between lesser and significant role and imposed 20 months on Osmani and 19 months on Kulla, applying a one-third guilty-plea reduction. The appeal concerned the proper culpability category, the electricity abstraction, and the applicable sentencing reduction.

The appeals were allowed. The sentences were quashed and substituted with terms of 8 months’ imprisonment for Osmani and 7 months’ imprisonment for Kulla.

1. Culpability. The appellants fell squarely within the lesser role category. The relevant factors included their limited function under direction, involvement resulting from exploitation and restricted lawful employment, absence of influence over those above them in the chain, and expectation of only limited financial advantage. They had not been paid and were living at the bottom of the operation.
2. Significant-role factors. Acting for financial gain did not establish an expectation of significant financial or other advantage. Mere awareness of the number of plants or the scale of the cannabis factory could not convert a lesser role into a significant role. The size of the grow had already been taken into account in categorising harm, and using it again to determine culpability would amount to double counting.
3. Electricity abstraction. The unlawful abstraction of electricity was not a significant aggravating factor for defendants whose knowledge of it had not been proved.
4. Sentence. The appropriate category 2 lesser-role starting point was 12 months’ imprisonment. The court reduced this by one month for Osmani and two months for Kulla, taking account of the mitigating circumstances and Kulla’s younger age and shorter period in the lockup. Since guilty pleas had not been indicated in the magistrates’ court, the correct reduction was one-quarter rather than one-third.
5. In view of the time already spent in custody, it was inappropriate to suspend the substituted sentences.

The offence was producing a Class B controlled drug contrary to section 4(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 1303, the appeals were allowed. The sentences were quashed and substituted with 8 months’ imprisonment for Osmani and 7 months’ imprisonment for Kulla.
2. Crown Court at Exeter: On 5 June 2025, the recorder sentenced Osmani to 20 months’ imprisonment and Kulla to 19 months’ imprisonment for producing Class B cannabis.