Cannabis gardener jailed after plants worth more than £27,000 seized in Wishaw
Hamilton Sheriff Court heard police officers found Servet Dulla hiding among loft insulation.
A cannabis gardener has been jailed for two years after plants worth more than £27,000 were seized in Wishaw.
Hamilton Sheriff Court heard police officers found Servet Dulla hiding among loft insulation.
The 45-year-old Albanian admitted producing cannabis at a house in Mid Carbarns on January 12.
John Coogan, prosecuting, said police were tipped off about a possible drugs cultivation. Officers armed with a search warrant went to the house late on a Sunday night.
There was no answer when they knocked but they could see the accused inside.
He went upstairs and made as if to jump from a window, prompting the cops to force entry.
They found Dulla in the loft along with cannabis plants and growing equipment. He was hiding amongst loft insulation.
There were 46 plants with a potential value of £200 to £600 each.
Routine checks were made by the Home Office but there was no evidence that Dulla was a victim of people trafficking.
Sheriff John Speir reduced the prison sentence from three years because of Dulla's early guilty plea.
*Don't miss the latest headlines from around Lanarkshire. Sign up to our newsletters here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
14 hours ago
- Telegraph
Illegal immigrant can stay in UK for daughter he does not speak to
An asylum judge allowed an illegal immigrant stay in Britain despite ' contradictory findings ' that his relationship with his daughter was good – but had also broken down. Andrew Kung'u Gichuhi, from Kenya, won his appeal to remain in the country, with a new hearing pending, after an immigration judge said Mr Gichuhi could stay in the UK because he had a 'genuine and subsisting' relationship with his daughter, and it would not be right to expect her to leave Britain. But, later on in her judgment, she appeared to contradict her earlier comments, saying there had been a breakdown in the father-daughter relationship. After the Home Office argued that her findings were 'irrational', an upper tribunal judge has now ruled that Mr Gichuhi's claim should be heard again. The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example uncovered by The Telegraph in which illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have been able to remain in the UK or halt their deportations on human rights grounds. 'Irrational' ruling Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, has announced plans to kerb judges' powers to block deportations with new 'common sense' rules to clarify how they interpret the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) article eight, which provides the right to a family life. The Home Secretary's rules are also intended to strengthen the public interest test, in which courts need to be hold themselves accountable and only grant exceptions to laws with justified reasons. Mr Gichuhi was living in the UK illegally as an unmarried partner of a British national when he applied for citizenship. The Home Office rejected his application, arguing that there were 'no insurmountable obstacles to family life with his partner continuing in Kenya'. The Home Office said he did not have a 'genuine and subsisting' relationship with his daughter, from a previous marriage. Mr Gichuhi appealed the decision to a lower-tier tribunal. The unnamed judge found that there was a 'genuine and subsisting' parental relationship between Gichuhi and his daughter, who 'could not reasonably be expected to leave the United Kingdom'. But later in the judgment, she said the relationship was 'broken down' and that there was 'no contact' between the Mr Gichuhi and his daughter. In the appeal against the 'irrational' finding, the Home Office said 'a relationship could not be both genuine and subsisting and broken down'. It added the judge had also been 'speculating about the possibility of future contact'. Those representing Mr Gichuhi argued that the judge had been 'entitled' to find that the relationship was subsisting, because he sent £100 a month to his daughter's bank account. They said he sent the money on an 'entirely voluntary basis', and his daughter had not returned the money. However, while they argued that a relationship could be 'genuine and subsisting' in 'the absence of contact', they accepted that 'subsisting was the antithesis of broken down'. For this reason, Mr Gichuhi's lawyers accepted that the judge's position was 'at least contradictory' and she had not explained how 'the contradictory positions were reconciled'. Upper Tribunal Judges Adrian Seelhoff and Sean O'Brien concluded: 'Consequently, the judge's finding at that [Mr Gichuhi's] relationship with his daughter had 'broken down' is inconsistent with her finding later in that paragraph that it was 'subsisting'. 'No attempt had been made to reconcile these contradictory findings. It follows that the judge's decision involved the making of an error of law.' They ruled that the case must be reheard afresh by another judge.
The Independent
16 hours ago
- The Independent
Retired police dogs deserve a pension, charity argues
The Government is facing calls to provide pensions for retired police dogs, recognising their service and sacrifice. The Thin Blue Paw Foundation has issued the appeal, highlighting the financial strain placed on former handlers and new owners. Since August 2020, the foundation has distributed £380,000 in grants to cover veterinary expenses, addressing health issues often stemming from the dogs' demanding physical work. Foundation chairman Kieran Stanbridge said police dogs give 'the best years of their lives' to the job. 'They throw themselves into dangerous situations without a second thought ... to help fight crime and keep the public safe.' While in service, the dogs receive comprehensive care, but upon retirement, they are left to rely on their handlers or new owners for often costly vet bills, he said. Mr Stanbridge argues that the Home Office, responsible for allocating funds to police forces, has "an ethical and moral obligation to these dogs" and should provide support in their retirement. There are about 1,700 serving police dogs in the UK, according to the foundation, and about 100 retire each year. It has launched a petition to push the Government for a ring-fenced budget to provide support for the owners of retired police dogs. 'Taking on any dog is a responsibility, but taking on an older retired police dog with health problems is a huge commitment, particularly during the current cost of living crisis,' Mr Stanbridge said. 'We need to ensure that there is support in place for these heroic police dogs so that people aren't put off the idea of rehoming them when they retire and so that owners are never faced with the heartbreaking decision of having them put to sleep because they can't afford their treatment.' Conditions such as arthritis can mean bills of up to £2,400 per year for pain medication, the charity said, and because these are pre-existing medical complaints they would not be covered by pet insurance. Police Scotland dog handler Julie Roy was faced with large vet bills caring for retired German shepherd Keach, who worked for West Midlands Police before moving north of the border. Keach has arthritis in her spin and knee, and the Thin Blue Paw Foundation pays for her pain medication. Ms Roy said: 'Vet bills are expensive and our dogs have worked hard in their working life, putting extra strain on the joints and the body. 'These dogs deserve to have ongoing support when they retire, so they can access the medication and treatment they need having served their communities for so long.' Fellow dog handler Claire Bird, from West Sussex, adopted Belgian Malinois Fiji, who worked for Surrey Police. She has required two operations, for an infection of the uterus and a gastric procedure, and needs regular medication for allergies. So far the foundation has paid £10,000 for her care. Ms Bird said: 'I've kept all of my working dogs when they retire and, as any dog owner knows, taking care of them is expensive. 'But I couldn't turn my back on them after everything they've given. 'I believe that there should be more support in place for these incredible heroes when they retire. 'They do so much for us while they're serving and yet when they retire, the Government and the police turn their backs on them.'
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
Knife-wielding Somalian migrant can stay in UK ‘because he's from minority tribe'
A Somalian convicted of knife crime in Britain can stay in the UK because he is a member of a clan that faces persecution in his home country. Abdilahi Essa Darwish, who was jailed for violence and wielding a blade, has won an immigration case after an asylum tribunal ruled he may come to harm if sent back. The Home Office tried to deport Darwish, 41, after his conviction but a judge said it was a violation of his human rights as he was part of a minority tribe and would face 'persecution' if he was returned to the African nation. Darwish has now been granted protection in the UK. Refuge for 'fear' of majority clans The upper tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber was told that Darwish originally came to Britain in June 2001 and claimed asylum that summer. The hearing, in Bradford, was told he was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2002 because he qualified as a refugee due to his clan membership. At the time of his arrival the Home Office accepted he had a 'well-founded fear of persecution' from majority clans in Somalia. It is said that he could face harm, punishment, or even torture if he were to return – a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In 2021 the Home Office tried to deport Darwish and revoke his protected status when he committed knife crime. A tribunal report said: '[Darwish] committed an offence of possession of a bladed article and affray in respect of which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. 'Thereafter the [Home Secretary at the time, Priti Patel] made a decision to deport [Darwish] to Somalia and to revoke his refugee status and this was done on January 5, 2021, and the deportation order was made on February 9, 2021.' Reasons for 'persecution' not clear Darwish, who claimed he had a mental health condition, instructed lawyers to launch an appeal. He won his appeal at the First-tier Tribunal last year but the Home Office appealed that decision at the Upper Tribunal. The Home Office argued that last year's tribunal 'failed to establish a reason for which [Darwish] would suffer persecution on return to Somalia'. Theey added that the circumstances under which he was granted refugee status in 2002 had changed. However, Upper Tribunal Judge Christopher Hanson found that Darwish still remains a refugee for the same reasons as in 2002 and so dismissed the Home Office's appeal. The tribunal heard that official country guidance for Somalia states: 'The starting point is that male and female members of minority clans from the south will, in general, be at risk of breaches of their Article 3 rights, and will be refugees, in the absence of evidence that they have a clan or personal patron and the means to access that area of safety without a real risk.'
