Cannabis-oil dealer who claimed it could cure cancer has jail term increased

A drug dealer who was spared jail after claiming that cannabis oil could help cure cancer and seizures is now set to face years behind bars after his sentence was increased at the Court of Appeal.

Joel Cunningham was convicted in May of seven offences, including conspiring to supply THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, and possession with intent to supply magic mushrooms, a Class A drug.

The 40-year-old was sentenced at Leeds Crown Court in June to 18 months in prison, suspended for 12 months.

But in a ruling on Tuesday (Sept 16), Lord Justice Jeremy Baker, sitting with Mr Justice Griffiths and Mr Justice Wall, quashed the sentence and imposed a four-year prison term, telling Cunningham that he must surrender to a police station in Leeds by 4pm on Wednesday (Sept 17).

They found that while there was no evidence that Cunningham, who attended the hearing in London, had supplied magic mushrooms previously, “the jury were clearly satisfied that he was planning to do so in the future”, and that the sentence was “unduly lenient”.

The Solicitor General had previously referred Cunningham’s sentence to the Court of Appeal, claiming that his sentence for one of the offences, possessing magic mushrooms with intent to supply, was too short.

In written submissions, the Solicitor General said that Cunningham conspired to supply cannabis-based products with his mother, Lisa Hillas, between November 2018 and October 2021.

He also offered them on Facebook without a licence and sold cannabis oil for between £55 and £120 a bottle, with some items purchased by the parents of a terminally ill child.

The Solicitor General said that Cunningham claimed that cannabis oil “could cure and assist with ailments including cancer in adults and seizures in children”.

While there was “no evidence of harm having been caused” by the products supplied, and “some users of the product attributed their recovery to the products provided”, the Solicitor General said Cunningham “did not seek to obtain any licence or other authorisation to permit him to sell” products containing cannabidiol, or CBD.

When police raided Cunningham’s house in October 2021, they found multiple cannabis-based products, £7,748 in cash, luxury watches, a CS spray canister and around 1.5 kilograms of magic mushrooms worth up to around £18,500.

Leeds Crown Courtplaceholder image
Leeds Crown Court | NW

Searches also found that around £488,000 had been deposited in his bank account.

After being released following his arrest, Cunningham posted on Facebook: “If I’m charged and sent to court, I’m more than happy to do so! The law on medical cannabis needs to change, it is totally wrong and unjust!”

The Solicitor General said that at trial, Cunningham told jurors that he had “researched and studied” the use of cannabis oil after his family obtained it to ease symptoms of his grandmother’s illness.

Jurors convicted him of possessing criminal property, two counts of conspiracy to supply THC, possession with intent to supply magic mushrooms, possessing a prohibited weapon, namely CS gas, possessing criminal property and offering to sell or supply an unauthorised medicinal product.

Sentencing him, Judge Neil Clark said the case was “highly unusual” and “factually unique”.

The Solicitor General said that Judge Clark also accepted that Cunningham “genuinely believed in the benefits of the cannabis-based products” and that his motivation “was not profit but to benefit people”.

Asking the Court of Appeal to increase his sentence, the Solicitor General said Judge Clark had “erred” by not treating the magic mushrooms conviction as the “lead offence”.

She said: “It is not accepted that any intention to supply Class A drugs for medicinal rather than recreational purposes would serve to decrease the sentence significantly.

“Either way, the harm, or risk of harm, in supplying dangerous drugs to others is present.”

In the Court of Appeal’s judgment, Lord Justice Jeremy Baker said that George Penny, for Cunningham, had told the court that the sentence was one that a judge could “reasonably consider appropriate” and “was not unduly lenient”.

News you can trust since 1754
Follow us
© 2026 Iconic Media Group Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice