Client convicted of producing Class A drugs avoids prison
Our client pleaded guilty to production of methylamphetamine (Class A). He was sentenced to a 12 month community order.
If the Prosecution had established that our client was motivated to produce these drugs for a financial or other advantage, on the sentencing guidelines he could have received a sentence of 2 – 5 years imprisonment. He was charged alongside his partner, with whom he shared the relevant address.
A drugs warrant was executed at our client’s home address in April 2017, and a number of glass flasks, syringes and beakers were found that contained chemicals that were allegedly consistent with the production of methylamphetamine. A number of computers that were seized from our client’s home address were analysed by the Prosecution and showed that he had searched for chemicals that are needed for the production of meth, and gas masks. The prosecution case was that these computers showed he had also watched a large number of documentaries about meth.
In order to prepare our client’s defence, we instructed a drugs expert to confirm whether any essential equipment and chemicals required for the production of meth were not present at our client’s home address, whether the chemicals found at our client’s home address had any legitimate uses in line with his instructions. We also instructed a computer expert to analyse our client’s computer and confirm that he had watched a large number of documentaries about topics other than meth, essentially putting the searches in relation to meth into context.
On the first day of trial our client decided to plead guilty, on the basis that he produced the meth for personal use only and only produced a small amount. He also pleaded guilty on the basis that his long-term partner was not involved in the production of meth and following his plea the Prosecution discontinued the case against her. We collated various character references from our client’s friends and employees and a pre-sentence report was prepared by the probation service.
Our client received a 12-month community order with an unpaid work requirement.
Amy Cox and Milly Blunt prepared the case for trial, and David Wood of 25 Bedford Row was instructed.
