section 4(2)(b) of, and Schedule 4 to, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Concerned in the production of a Class A controlled drug

One reference for Cocaine, Crack Cocaine, Heroin, Ecstasy, LSD, Methadone, Methylamphetamine. Each is the same offence under the same section and carries the same maximum penalty — the substance is the only difference. Every variant below keeps its own statutory reference, points to prove and sources, verified against legislation.gov.uk (current revised versions, July 2026).

Cocaine

Offence: section 4(2)(b) of, and Schedule 4 to, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Mode of trial & maximum penalty: Either way — Summary: 6/12 months' imprisonment and/or a fine; Indictment: life imprisonment

Points to prove

  • 1. A controlled drug was produced by another person in contravention of s 4(1) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
  • 2. The drug produced was cocaine, a controlled drug of Class A
  • 3. The defendant was concerned in that production, i.e. took some identifiable part in the enterprise
  • 4. The defendant knew the nature of the enterprise, i.e. that it involved the production of a controlled drug (R v Hughes (1985) 81 Cr App R 344, applied to the 'concerned in' limbs)

Sources

Crack Cocaine

Offence: section 4(2)(b) of, and Schedule 4 to, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Mode of trial & maximum penalty: Either way — Summary: 6/12 months' imprisonment and/or a fine; Indictment: life imprisonment

Points to prove

  • 1. A controlled drug was produced by another person in contravention of s 4(1) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (converting cocaine hydrochloride into crack is 'production' — producing by any method, s 37(1))
  • 2. The drug produced was cocaine in the form of crack cocaine, a controlled drug of Class A
  • 3. The defendant was concerned in that production, i.e. took some identifiable part in the enterprise
  • 4. The defendant knew the nature of the enterprise, i.e. that it involved the production of a controlled drug (R v Hughes (1985) 81 Cr App R 344, applied to the 'concerned in' limbs)

Sources

Heroin

Offence: section 4(2)(b) of, and Schedule 4 to, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Mode of trial & maximum penalty: Either way — Summary: 6/12 months' imprisonment and/or a fine; Indictment: life imprisonment

Points to prove

  • 1. A controlled drug was produced by another person in contravention of s 4(1) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
  • 2. The drug produced was diamorphine (heroin), a controlled drug of Class A
  • 3. The defendant was concerned in that production, i.e. took some identifiable part in the enterprise
  • 4. The defendant knew the nature of the enterprise, i.e. that it involved the production of a controlled drug (R v Hughes (1985) 81 Cr App R 344, applied to the 'concerned in' limbs)

Sources

Ecstasy

Offence: section 4(2)(b) of, and Schedule 4 to, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Mode of trial & maximum penalty: Either way — Summary: 6/12 months' imprisonment and/or a fine; Indictment: life imprisonment

Points to prove

  • 1. A controlled drug was produced by another person in contravention of s 4(1) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
  • 2. The drug produced was MDMA (ecstasy), a controlled drug of Class A
  • 3. The defendant was concerned in that production, i.e. took some identifiable part in the enterprise
  • 4. The defendant knew the nature of the enterprise, i.e. that it involved the production of a controlled drug (R v Hughes (1985) 81 Cr App R 344, applied to the 'concerned in' limbs)

Sources

LSD

Offence: section 4(2)(b) of, and Schedule 4 to, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Mode of trial & maximum penalty: Either way — Summary: 6/12 months' imprisonment and/or a fine; Indictment: life imprisonment

Points to prove

  • 1. A controlled drug was produced by another person in contravention of s 4(1) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
  • 2. The drug produced was lysergide (LSD), a controlled drug of Class A
  • 3. The defendant was concerned in that production, i.e. took some identifiable part in the enterprise
  • 4. The defendant knew the nature of the enterprise, i.e. that it involved the production of a controlled drug (R v Hughes (1985) 81 Cr App R 344, applied to the 'concerned in' limbs)

Sources

Methadone

Offence: section 4(2)(b) of, and Schedule 4 to, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Mode of trial & maximum penalty: Either way — Summary: 6/12 months' imprisonment and/or a fine; Indictment: life imprisonment

Points to prove

  • 1. A controlled drug was produced by another person in contravention of s 4(1) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
  • 2. The drug produced was methadone, a controlled drug of Class A
  • 3. The defendant was concerned in that production, i.e. took some identifiable part in the enterprise
  • 4. The defendant knew the nature of the enterprise, i.e. that it involved the production of a controlled drug (R v Hughes (1985) 81 Cr App R 344, applied to the 'concerned in' limbs)

Sources

Methylamphetamine

Offence: section 4(2)(b) of, and Schedule 4 to, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Mode of trial & maximum penalty: Either way — Summary: 6/12 months' imprisonment and/or a fine; Indictment: life imprisonment

Points to prove

  • 1. A controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine (a Class A controlled drug), was produced by another person
  • 2. That production was in contravention of section 4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (not authorised by regulations under s 7 or provision made in a temporary class drug order under s 7A)
  • 3. The defendant was concerned in that production by the other person (participation or identifiable involvement in the production enterprise)
  • 4. The defendant knew the nature of the enterprise, i.e. that it involved the production of a controlled drug (R v Hughes (1985) 81 Cr App R 344, applied to the 'concerned in' limbs)

Sources

Reference only — verify against current legislation and force policy before charge. Spotted an error? Tell us.

This card, offline, in two taps

Section puts 1,200+ offences with verified points to prove, penalties and CJS codes in your pocket — built for on-shift lookup, free.

Join the waitlist