Adopting a no-nonsense approach to cannabis cultivation

Simon Strelitz reports on a housing association's tough approach when it was discovered that cannabis was being grown at one of its properties.

During a police raid at a property in Medway, Kent, 14 cannabis plants and all associated paraphernalia were discovered. The electricity meter had also been bypassed and electricity stolen. The boyfriend of the tenant, who resided at the property, was convicted of cultivating cannabis and abstraction of electricity in the criminal courts.

Moat Homes commenced possession proceedings against the tenant, who alleged at trial that she was unaware that her boyfriend had grown cannabis in the loft. The tenant purported to apologise, but nowhere was an apology to be found in her written evidence or in her dealings with Moat prior to the trial. She promised that it would not happen again and sought to persuade the judge that she had ended her relationship with the boyfriend. The tenant stressed the fact that she had a nine-year old daughter living with her, who would also suffer if a possession order was made.

The police provided very detailed evidence in the form of a community impact statement, which set out the general impact of cannabis cultivation on the community and provided a number of particular facts about the dangers of cannabis cultivation. In particular, the police confirmed that where there is a cannabis factory, a fire is 40 times more likely to occur.

During cross examination, the tenant was forced to admit that she had previously been a cannabis user herself and had both used and kept cannabis in the property. There were no flies on the judge who, when delivering his judgment, stated that it was “inconceivable” that the tenant was unaware of the drugs cultivation going on in her own home. He pointed out that the property was a small, two-bedroom home. He said “put at its highest, [the tenant] turned a blind eye”. The judge took note of the persuasive evidence of the police and stated that he did not have the “slightest hesitation in granting a possession order”.

When it came to the decision as to whether or not that order should be suspended or not, the judge commented that drugs were “rife in Medway” and that they “may be seen as endemic and not anti-social but they are”. In ordering that the order should be outright, the judge said that landlords “should not and need not put up with this kind of behaviour". Despite the tenant having, at best, made an apology “of sorts”, he found that the tenant in fact lacked “any real contrition” as the judge put it, and it was not enough to persuade him to suspend the order. He also took the view that you cannot put your children at risk one minute and then the next seek to hide behind them as a shield against a possession order.

The tenant sought permission to appeal this decision, which was successfully opposed by Moat Homes.

Simon Strelitz is an in-house barrister at Clarke Willmott and appeared for Moat Homes in this case. Simon can be contacted on 0845 209 1351 or by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..