Zhi Pen Lin V. Her Majesty's Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Justice General,Lord Carloway,Lord Nimmo Smith |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] HCJAC 62 |
| Published date | 02 November 2007 |
| Year | 2007 |
| Date | 02 November 2007 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Docket Number | XC618/07 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lord Justice General Lord Nimmo Smith Lord Carloway | [2007] HCJAC 62 Appeal No: XC618/07 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by THE LORD JUSTICE GENERAL in APPEAL by ZHI PEN LIN Appellant; against HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE Respondent: _______ |
Act: Crowe; Drummond Miller, Edinburgh
Alt: McConnachie, Q.C., A.D.; Crown Agent
2 November 2007
[1] The appellant pled guilty at a continued first diet in the Sheriff Court at Forfar to a contravention of section 4(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 - production of cannabis, in contravention of section 4(1) of the Act. The offence was committed between 10 February and 5 March 2007. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years and 9 months, the sentence having been discounted by reason of his early plea from one of 5 years' imprisonment. A deportation order was recommended.
[2] The appellant, who is 32 years of age, is a Chinese national. He entered the United Kingdom illegally in March 2005. He claimed asylum under a false name. His claim was rejected. He was initially detained but then released temporarily, subject to a reporting restriction in London. He failed to comply with that restriction, next coming to the notice of the authorities in connection with the present offence.
[3] The dwellinghouse at 77 South Street, Forfar is a bungalow comprising five rooms with kitchen and bathroom. In September 2006 its owner leased it to a named individual. Rent was paid timeously. On 5 March 2007 in furtherance of a search warrant police officers forced entry into this dwellinghouse. All its windows had their curtains drawn closed. The floors and internal doors were covered with plastic sheeting. Reflective material had been placed on the walls of certain of the rooms. The whole dwellinghouse, other than its kitchen, was devoted to the cultivation of cannabis. Elaborate electrical cabling arrangements had been made to supply heat and light to the plants. High voltage bulbs were in use. The rooms were at high temperatures, at one point reaching 96 degrees Fahrenheit. Arrangements for propagating and fertilising the plants were in place. Within the bathroom was a large water tub with a hose attachment leading to the hall area to facilitate the watering of plants throughout the house.
[4] Within the property were in all 849 cannabis plants at various stages of growth. Their estimated value was £100 per plant, giving a total value of £84,900.
[5] At interview the appellant stated that on leaving London he had gone to Manchester to work. While there in February 2007 he had been approached by a man who had requested him to reside in his house and to water some plants. He was taken by that man to the dwellinghouse in Forfar where he lived and slept in the kitchen. Every few days the man would bring food to the appellant and check the plants. The appellant's duties were to water the plants, feed them, cut the leaves from the bottom of them and lay out the cut leaves to dry. The appellant stated to the police that he believed that the plants were "some sort of air freshener". He could not, he said, name the man who had brought him to Forfar, stating only that he had the nickname "AJ". That man had put dried cannabis leaves into plastic bags.
[6] In mitigation before the sheriff it was stated that the appellant, who had a wife and young son in China, had fled from that country following difficulties there. He had paid money to a "snakehead" for his journey to the United Kingdom. He was saving up to repay that debt. He had found himself out of work in Manchester and in these circumstances had accepted the offer of work in Scotland. He had been told that he would be paid for the work. He had hoped in due course to get work in a kitchen or restaurant. He had been told that the plants were to do with some sort of air freshener but, having seen the arrangements, quickly realised that the operation was concerned with controlled drugs. He had had, however, no option but to do what was asked of him. He had no source of income, no roof over his head and no food. He was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crown Appeals Against Sentence By Hma Against Lb, Ji, And Jt
...deter certain types of offending, especially when relatively novel, by sentencing mechanisms (eg cannabis cultivation in Lin v HM Advocate 2008 JC 142), there is no data to suggest that the increase in prosecutions for rape and attempted rape demonstrate an increasing number of rapes rather......
-
Phan v HM Advocate
...Sociale della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano (IPES) (C-571/10) EU:C:2012:233; [2012] 2 CMLR 43; [2013] All ER (EC) 125 Lin v HM Advocate [2007] HCJAC 62; 2008 JC 142; 2008 SCCR 16; 2008 SCL 251; 2007 GWD 35–591 McBain v Crichton 1961 JC 25; 1961 SLT 209 Opinion 2/13 (C-2/13) EU:C:2014:2454 C......
-
Quyen Van Phan Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...In a case such as the present, where there are established parameters in relation to sentences for cannabis cultivation (Lin v HM Advocate 2008 JC 142), a significant reduction in the level of custodial sentence may be appropriate. In other situations, a non-custodial disposal may be impose......
-
Appeal Against Sentence By Hai Van Le Also Know As Trung Dung Le Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...explains that in determining the appropriate sentence she had had regard to the guidance provided by the Appeal Court in Lin v HM Advocate 2008 JC 142. However, Mr Findlater submitted that what she had not done was to have regard to what had been said in Quyen Van Phan v HM Advocate: that t......
-
Four Models Of Judicial Reasoning In Sentencing
...JC 185. 106HM Advocate v Collins [2016] HCJAC 102, 2017 JC 99. 107HM Advocate v Boyle [2009] HCJAC 89, 2010 JC 66. 108Lin v HM Advocate [2007] HCJAC 62, 2008 JC 142. 109Gill v Thomson [2010] HCJAC 99, 2012 JC 137. 110See Du Plooy v HM Advocate 2005 1 JC 1; HM Advocate v Spence [2007] HCJAC ......