202302559 B1 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1149

The grounds of appeal:

The appellant initially applied for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction on grounds of his own composition. They have been replaced by perfected grounds of appeal settled by counsel. The appellant contends that his convictions are unsafe, notwithstanding his guilty pleas, on four grounds, which we summarise as follows:

Ground 1: Having regard to the decision of this court in R v Margiotta and others [2023] EWC Crim 759 (“Margiotta”), the herbal material was not a controlled drug and it was not unlawful for the appellant to import it.

Ground 2: The appellant’s guilty pleas to counts 2, 3 and 4 were equivocal pleas entered following incorrect legal advice, in circumstances where he had a defence of lack of knowledge which was likely to succeed, and were therefore vitiated in accordance with the principles stated by this court in R v Tredget [2022] EWCA Crim 108 (“Tredget”).

Ground 3: The appellant’s guilty plea to count 5 is similarly vitiated because it too was an equivocal plea entered following incorrect legal advice, in circumstances where the appellant had a defence under s28 of MDA 1971 which was likely to succeed.

Ground 4: The law relating to cannabis products containing a low level of THC is not sufficiently clear, and criminalisation of the appellant’s conduct therefore breached his rights under article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“article 7”).

Each of the grounds of appeal is opposed by the prosecution.

The legal framework:

Before summarising the submissions, it is convenient to refer to relevant legislation and case law.