Appeal court quashes hydroponic cannabis convictions

[Alfa]

Appeal court quashes hydroponic cannabis convictions

· No proof that equipment was used to cultivate drug
· Relief for firms operating in legal grey area

# Duncan Campbell
# The Guardian,
# Monday July 14, 2008


Cannabis leaf. Photograph: Mykel Nicolaou / Rex Features

A court of appeal decision has shone a light on the homegrown cannabis industry. The quashing of the convictions of three men involved in hydroponics comes at a time when cultivation of cannabis in the UK is at record levels.

In January, three men who worked for a hydroponics company in Derby were convicted at Derby crown court of conspiracy to aid and abet the production of cannabis.

David Kenning was jailed for 21 months, his employee Paul Blackshaw received a suspended sentence and his business partner, Paul Fenwick, was jailed for three years for conspiracy to aid and abet and counsel production and possession of the drug.

It was the prosecution's case that Kenning and Fenwick, trading through their now defunct firm, had supplied equipment to cannabis growers, reasonably foreseeing that the items would be used illegally. But it was not proved that anyone had used the equipment to grow cannabis.

But in the appeal court judgment, published last week, Lord Phillips, the lord chief justice, ruled that the offences of conspiracy to aid and abet and counsel the production of cannabis were "unknown to law" and had to be quashed. "There can be no conviction for aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring, unless the offence is shown to have occurred," he said. "It is not an offence to attempt to aid and abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence."

The case has highlighted the legal grey areas in which the suppliers of such equipment work at a time when homegrown cannabis is booming.

Harry Shapiro, of the charity Drugscope, estimated that between 60% and 80% of cannabis in Britain is homegrown, up from 11% a decade ago. While much of this is professionally produced in warehouses, some is cultivated for private consumption. Although it is legal to sell the high-powered lights and growing systems, it is not legal to assist in growing cannabis.

Niamh Eastwood, head of legal services at the drugs information and advice agency Release, which advised the three men, welcomed the ruling. She added that there was concern among stores selling such equipment over where they stood legally. "What is worrying is that people engaging in a legitimate business are still unsure of what the law is," she said.

There are many legitimate reasons for buying and selling hydroponics equipment. Many companies highlight how city dwellers can have the satisfaction of growing crops such as strawberries.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thanks for sharing.

[grecian]

A stunning victory for the homegrown industry against the CPS in Britain, which will hopefully set a legal precedent against future cases coming to court.

More on the same case, this from the Times on 10th July

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle4305033.ece

AGREEMENT NOT A CONSPIRACY

Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Published July 10, 2008
Regina v Kenning Regina v Blackshaw Regina v Fenwick
Before Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Dobbs and Mr Justice Underhill
Judgment June 24, 2008

An agreement to aid and abet an offence did not constitute a criminal conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held in allowing appeals by David Kenning, Paul Blackshaw and Paul Fenwick against their convictions at Derby Crown Court (Judge David Price and a jury) on November 2, 2007, for, inter alia, conspiracy to aid and abet production of a class C drug.

Mr David Matthew for Kenning; Mr Harry Bowyer for Blackshaw; Mr James Beck for Fenwick, all assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals; Mr Timothy J. Spencer, QC and Mr Andrew Peet for the Crown.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, giving the judgment of the court, said that the appellants were concerned in a business, the Hydropon-ic Centre. Items purchased there had been used to grow cannabis. However, those items might equally have been used to grow plants that could be grown lawfully. There was thus no basis upon which the appellants could have been charged with aiding and abetting the production of cannabis on the simple basis that they had sold the items in question.

The prosecution decided that the answer to their problem was to bring charges in the form that they did.

The appellants submitted that a statutory conspiracy could not be committed unless the acts which the conspirators had agreed to do would, if carried out, result in the commission of a criminal offence.

They contended that the offence of conspiring to aid and abet was unknown to law, relying on the Court of Appeal decision in R v Hollinshead ([1985] AC 975). Their Lordships endorsed that court’s conclusion that an agreement to aid and abet an offence was not in law capable of constituting a criminal conspiracy under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Also should this thread be merged with the one linked below as they both refer to the same case?

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/sho...ning+blackshaw

[MrG]

Wow, the practice of seeking to prosecute hydroponics suppliers sounds awfully familiar.

Aren't there some horror stories from across the pond where people ended up getting years behind bars by being convicted for the same thing? Maybe their appeals could reference this case.

[grecian]

Originally Posted by MrG

Maybe their appeals could reference this case.

Wishful thinking I fear. I think it would take a very brave/stupid attorney to try to influence an American trial using precedents set by British law. However, I am no expert in law, do you think this is really possible?

[MrG]

It's not so much the precedent, it would be more for the US defence lawyers to try and apply the same arguments. They wouldn't necessarily reference the British case, just use the same arguments.