£150k swimming pool cannabis grower fails in bid to clear his name
A man caught growing cannabis plants worth more than £150,000 in his swimming pool has failed in a bid to clear his name.
Wayne Rushton had filled the pool at his former home in Penkridge Bank Road, Rugeley, with about 230 plants and growing equipment.
The 52-year-old, of Lansbury Drive, Cannock, was jailed for six years after being found guilty of producing the class B drug at Stafford Crown Court in March 2013.
This week he challenged his conviction at London's Criminal Appeal Court, arguing his trial was 'unfair'.
But his complaint was thrown out by three senior judges, who said they were 'satisfied' his appeal had no merit.
They also dismissed a bid by Rushton to have his sentence cut, saying it was 'not excessive'.
The court heard police made the astonishing discovery during a search of his home in 2011.
Officers initially thought there was nothing unusual in the house, but they then discovered a locked door in the main hallway.
Rushton said the key had been lost, but then handed it over to officers who found the plants in the swimming pool.
He admitted growing the plants, but claimed he had only done it to appease loan sharks who had threatened to harm him and his family.
However, his version of events was not believed by the jury and he was found guilty.
In documents prepared by himself, Rushton argued he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
He said the jury should not have been told that he had earlier admitted the offence, before retracting his guilty plea.
He also claimed that an attack of gout he suffered during the trial affected his ability to give evidence.
But, dismissing his appeal, Mr Justice William Davis said: "We are quite satisfied that there is nothing in this application for leave to appeal against conviction."
Sitting with Lord Justice Davis and Mrs Justice Carr, he also rejected Rushton's challenge to the length of his sentence.
His punishment was tougher than the term handed to an accomplice because his role was much more serious, he said.
The appeal judge concluded: "There is no arguable basis on which the sentence can be impugned."
