202302559 B1 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1149

Ground 2:

The appellant submits that, as his basis of plea showed, he continued to believe, notwithstanding PC Hemns’ email, that low THC cannabis was not a controlled drug and that he was acting legally. He was therefore not knowingly concerned in a fraudulent evasion of a statutory prohibition. It is submitted that his guilty pleas to counts 2, 3 and 4 were equivocal and based on erroneous legal advice, and he did not commit the offences charged.

The respondent submits that Mr Normanton’s response to the criticisms made of him shows that the appellant was advised about s170(2)(b) of the CEMA 1971, and was advised that he could advance a defence of lack of knowledge. That potential defence did not, however, have any real prospect of success.