A man who claimed he was forced into slavery at an £800,000 Aberdeen cannabis farm has had his appeal for a shorter jail sentence rejected.
Vietnamese national Trung Dung Le was sentenced to three years behind bars in February after admitting to growing and supplying the class B drug.
Alongside two other men, he was involved in a sophisticated operation within a flat on Langstane Place.
Police seized a range of growing equipment and more than 1,000 plants valued between £225,000 and £831,000 when they raided the property last July.
But after being arrested Le said his involvement was against his will.
The 37-year-old told social workers that, while working in China in 2009, he had been bundled into the back of a lorry and trafficked to the UK to look after various cannabis plantations for a gang.
He said that, while he tried to escape his captors twice, he was “beaten up” and told his family back in Vietnam would be targeted if he did not comply with their demands.
Le said he arrived in Aberdeen understanding that he would be given £500 per month to water the plants, but never received any payment.
Court documents said he had a “level of regret” over his involvement.
A report stated: “He was not aware that the plants he was tending were illicit substances.
“He advised that he was too frightened to attempt to flee the address as he believed that the persons employing him would be watching outside.”
However Le’s claim of modern slavery was rejected by the Home Office, after it obtained CCTV footage of him entering a betting shop and a fast food restaurant before talking on a mobile phone and entering the flat last July.
And while the court agreed he had been acting under the threat of violence, he “fell short” of convincing prosecutors that he had been coerced into carrying out illegal activities – prompting his guilty plea.
After being jailed for three years, Le appealed to the High Court of Justiciary claiming his background had not fully been considered by the sheriff.
Reviewing the case, Lord Brodie said that the supposed human trafficking aspect had not been mentioned by Le’s solicitor and rejected the appeal.
He wrote: “We do not consider that the sheriff’s approach to the information which was put before her has resulted in the imposition of a sentence which was excessive in the circumstances.
“Indeed the sentence imposed might be regarded as lenient.”
