Production and Marihuana Grow Operations
7. (1) Production of substance – Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall produce a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV.
Amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act came into force on November 6, 2012. For production of Schedule I drugs (egs. methamphetamine and ecstasy), a two year minimum sentence applies. With the additional existence of any of the listed aggravating factors, the minimum sentence increases to three years.
Penalties for those convicted of production of marihuana vary depending upon the number of plants involved. And at least in these circumstances, “size does NOT matter.” A collection of as little as 6 marihuana plants of any size can trigger a 9 month minimum prison sentence. For production involving 201 to 500 plants, a minimum sentence of 18 months may be ordered. For more than 500 plants, the minimum mandatory sentence can increase to three years imprisonment.
Any criminal conviction can have far-reaching consequences which extend beyond the courtroom. A drug conviction can be particularly devastating.
Wade Jenson is an experienced drug lawyer with a reputation for achieving exceptional results for his clients.
1) R. v. G+D
Client and his common law wife charged with production of marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking after police excecuted a search warrant and discovered marihuana plants growing both inside and outside the home. Criminal drug lawyer Wade Jenson was hired to defend, and succeeded in raising a reasonable doubt as to his clients’ knowledge and control of the plants. ALL CHARGES DISMISSED.
2) R. v. B.
Police conducted ongoing surveillance of a large Okanagan property before obtaining a warrant to search. Accused arrested at the scene of a 1200-plant marihuana grow operation, with a crop potential valued by police at over $500,000 dollars. Accused charged with production of marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking. Kelowna criminal lawyer Wade Jenson was retained, who was successful in having ALL CHARGES DISMISSEDagainst his client before trial.
3) R. v. A.
Police executed a search warrant on a home in which they located over 200 marihuana plants and previously harvested product. The homeowner was charged with production of marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking. Criminal defence lawyer Wade Jenson was retained. Wade Jenson was successful in establishing that when the police were attempting to gather evidence upon which to support a warrant, they had crossed over onto his client’s private property. The right under Section 8 of the Charter protecting all citizens against unreasonable search or seizure was found to have been violated. ALL CHARGES DISMISSED.