202302559 B1 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1149

The submissions to this court:

We turn to the competing submissions in respect of each of the four grounds of appeal summarised in paragraph 17 above. We have been assisted by the submissions of Simon Ray KC and Lyndon Harris for the appellant, and Benjamin Douglas-Jones KC and Robin Shellard for the respondent. We are grateful to them all. We shall summarise their submissions briefly, but we have considered all the points made on each side, both in writing and orally.

In relation to grounds 2 and 3, it should be noted that Mr Normanton has provided this court with detailed information about the advice he gave to the appellant and the appellant’s reasons for pleading guilty. It is clear that the appellant accepted that the plant material which he imported was in fact and law cannabis within the definition in the MDA 1971. It is also clear that, contrary to the unjustified criticisms of him which the appellant had initially made, Mr Normanton advised the appellant that he could seek to rely on a defence of lack of knowledge in relation to counts 2 – 4, and a defence under s28(3) in relation to count 5, but also advised him that those defences were undermined by PC Hemns’ email. The appellant now accepts that he was so advised, and no criticism of Mr Normanton is now made.

Mr Normanton accepts that he was not aware of the argument which 7 months later was considered by this court in Margiotta. He indicates that, if he had been aware of the court’s acceptance of that argument, he would likely have given different advice to the appellant, and in particular would have advised that expert evidence be obtained as to whether the plant material imported by the appellant was “raw hemp”. He adds that he would likely also have advised that the argument was unlikely to assist the appellant in relation to his activity after 31 December 2020.