Lister, R. v

J U D G M E N T

THE RECORDER : This appeal is concerned with the valuation of benefit for the purposes of confiscation proceedings. This appellant was sentenced at Chichester Crown Court on 30th October 2012 in respect of two allegations. He was charged and pleaded guilty to an offence of being concerned in the production of cannabis, which offence occurred on 11th September 2011. He had already been committed for sentence in respect of an offence charged as occurring on 7th October 2011 for producing a controlled drug, namely cannabis. He was sentenced by His Honour Judge Wood QC to serve sentences of 21 months' imprisonment, ordered to run concurrently.

Those offences arose out of two separate raids by the police on two different addresses both relating to the appellant. On 11th September 2011 police visited 15 Elmhurst Close in Angmerring, West Sussex and discovered a cannabis grow consisting of 22 plants which had not reached full maturity. These plants were examined by an expert who estimated that the total likely yield of skunk-type cannabis when they reached maturity would be approximately 616 grams or about 21 ounces. The street value was estimated to be £6,160. The wholesale value between £3,360 and £3,780.

The following month police officers armed with a warrant issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act went to the appellant's home address at 21 Cheviot Close in East Preston. There they discovered the appellant. He showed them into a utility room where a plastic garden tent had been erected containing approximately 80 cannabis plant heads that were being dried out on racks along with lighting and ducting equipment. These drugs were identified as 468 grams of skunk-type cannabis with a street value of £4,350. No wholesale value was provided.

Although the appellant pleaded guilty to both allegations, his basis of plea, not accepted by the Crown, was that he had not participated in the setting up of the Elmhurst Close operation and that he was not intended to receive any financial benefit from it. He also asserted that the drugs found at his home address were for his own personal use.

The judge held a Newton hearing at which the appellant gave evidence. The judge rejected the appellant's account. The appellant sought to explain that he rented out the premises at Elmhurst Close to tenants and had no interest in the cannabis being grown there. He admitted however that he had driven to Guildford to acquire the necessary equipment. His fingerprints were