Serjanaj, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Crown Court at The City sentenced the Appellant, then aged 44, on 25 February 2026 to 26 months' imprisonment following an earlier plea to being concerned in the production of a Class B drug (cannabis), contrary to s.4(2)(b) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Appellant, with leave, appealed that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

On 27 January 2026 police, alerted by heat detected on drone footage, forced entry to premises in The City and discovered a multi-floor, large-scale cannabis production operation with specialist equipment. Officers saw the Appellant heading towards the exit; he was cautioned, arrested and, in interview, provided a prepared statement but otherwise said nothing.

In his prepared statement the Appellant said he had been at the address for one week and that his only role was occasionally watering plants; he denied setting up, running or managing the operation, denied benefiting financially, and denied ownership of plants, equipment or premises. He had no previous convictions.

The transcript of the sentencing judge's oral remarks could not be obtained; the parties agreed a note of the sentencing judge's conclusions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the Appellant's culpability as including a significant role rather than as a lesser role.
2. Whether the judge was entitled to identify aggravating features and to adopt a starting point of three years' custody rather than the lower starting point applicable to a lesser role, and whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Allinson-Howells)

• The Appellant's role was that of a gardener performing a limited function under direction, with no influence on those above him; his knowledge did not extend to the overall scale of the wider operation, placing him within the lesser-role category.
• The Appellant was an illegal entrant with no immigration status and spoke no English; he did not pursue a modern slavery defence nor disclose how he came to be involved.
• The judge was wrong to adopt a three-year starting point; the correct starting point was one year and there were no proper aggravating factors—reliance on the operation's scale was double-counting and there was insufficient evidence of risk of serious harm to others. Counsel cited R v. Thuan van Vu [2014] EWCA Crim 561 as a similar example.

Prosecution's Arguments

• By reference to the sentencing guideline the Appellant had a significant role because he had some awareness and understanding of the scale of the operation; factors of lesser role (eg. coercion or exploitation) were not present.
• Harm was category 2 (operation capable of producing industrial quantities for commercial use), producing a starting point of four years and a category range of two years six months to five years; the operation's scale and risk to third parties were relied on as aggravating features.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Soole concluded that the judge below was entitled to find that the Appellant's role fell between significant and lesser. That conclusion was supported by the Appellant's cautious and limited account. The sentencing judge therefore could have selected a starting point between the guideline starting points, weighted substantially towards the factors indicative of a lesser role.

However, the court found the adoption of the three-year starting point (the guideline starting point for a significant role) to be significantly too high given that the Appellant's role was substantially weighted towards lesser role characteristics. The court also found no proper basis for additional aggravating factors: treating the scale of the operation as an aggravating feature would amount to double-counting of the category 2 harm, and there was no specific evidence establishing a risk of serious harm to others from the operation's location or heat generation.

Accordingly, the court identified that a sentence before credit should not have exceeded two years, and that full credit for plea required a substituted custodial term less than the 26 months originally imposed.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART; SENTENCE SUBSTITUTED

Holding: The Court allowed the appeal in part and substituted a sentence of 16 months' imprisonment (taking full credit for plea), reducing the sentence from 26 months to 16 months.

Implications: The direct effect is the reduction of the Appellant's custodial term. The court emphasised correct application of the guideline starting points and avoidance of double-counting aggravating features; the opinion does not purport to establish a novel precedent beyond the application of existing guideline principles.