R v Jetmir Serjanaj

In sentencing for participation in commercial-scale cannabis production, culpability may fall between guideline role categories. Where an offender’s role contains elements of both significant and lesser role, the court may select an intermediate starting point, weighted substantially towards the predominant lesser-role factors. The selected starting point must account for the applicable harm category. The scale of the operation cannot then be used again as an aggravating feature where that would involve double-counting. A risk of harm to others requires specific and additional evidence before it can aggravate sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to being concerned in the production of cannabis, contrary to s.4(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and was sentenced by the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne to 26 months’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge assessed his role as falling between significant and lesser role, but adopted the three-year starting point for significant role, increased it for aggravation, and then applied full credit for his guilty plea.

On appeal, the appellant argued that his role was lesser, that the scale of the operation was already reflected in the harm category, and that there was insufficient evidence of risk of harm to others. The central issue was whether the starting point and aggravating features were justified.

The appeal was allowed to the extent that the sentence was reduced to 16 months’ imprisonment.

1. Role assessment. The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to find that the appellant’s role fell between significant and lesser role. An intermediate role assessment could justify a starting point between the guideline starting points, substantially weighted towards the predominant lesser-role factors. However, adopting the full three-year starting point for significant role was significantly excessive, particularly given the limited and directed nature of the appellant’s involvement (para. [9]).
2. Double-counting. Once the starting point accounted for the appellant’s role and the category 2 harm, there was no proper basis for treating the overall scale of the operation as a further aggravating factor. Doing so would double-count the scale of the operation (para. [10]).
3. Risk of harm. There was no specific and additional evidence establishing a risk of harm to others sufficient to aggravate the sentence. The asserted heat generated by the premises did not provide an adequate basis on the agreed material (para. [10]).
4. Sentence. The sentence before credit for plea should not have exceeded two years. Applying full credit for the guilty plea, the court substituted a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment (para. [11]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment: [2026] EWCA Crim 601.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: On 25 February 2026, sentenced the appellant to 26 months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea.