Macau’s top court cuts two home growers’ sentences for a single plant

Two people who grew a single cannabis plant at home saw their prison sentences cut sharply by Macau’s top court on 4 November 2022. Each had originally received a combined five years nine months; the final combined sentences were one year nine months for one grower and two years for the other.^[1]

One plant in a small tent

Police found the plant during a home search in June 2021. It stood 85 centimetres tall inside a black growing tent roughly 60 centimetres square and 90 centimetres high. One defendant had bought equipment and learned cultivation methods online; the other helped with watering, lights and ventilation.^[1]

Both were first offenders. The judgment described one as a trader supporting a young daughter and the other as a casino receptionist or public-relations assistant supporting his parents and a young son. Their responsibilities were among the personal circumstances recorded by the court.^[1]

Personal use could still bring years in prison

The case arose under Macau’s stricter personal-use rules, effective in January 2017. Those rules directed cases above five daily reference quantities to production, trafficking or lesser-gravity penalties, even when the cannabis was intended entirely for personal use.^[2]

The plant’s leaves and flowers weighed 37.208 grams. The court upheld the use of the net herbal weight when comparing it with the reference quantity. It rejected the argument that the calculation should instead use only the weight of the THC within those leaves and flowers.^[1]

Quantity did not decide everything

The decisive issue was whether the two growers should receive the ordinary production penalty or the lesser tier, carrying one to five years. The court considered the single plant, its stage of growth and the circumstances of the cultivation, and applied the lesser offence despite the quantity exceeding the five-day reference.^[1]

For the production component, the sentences became one year six months and one year nine months. With the consumption and equipment offences combined, the totals became one year nine months and two years. The court extended the successful argument’s benefit to the other grower, but refused to suspend either sentence.^[1]

A distinction with practical consequences

The ruling made the lesser tier meaningful for these home growers: their personal circumstances and the limited operation affected the punishment even after the quantity rule brought production penalties into play.^[1]

A later growing-and-selling case concerned a much larger operation and ended with nine years three months in prison.^[3] Together, the cases show why Macau’s profile distinguishes the available penalty tiers and the circumstances courts assess.