WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT WARWICK HHJ ANTHONY POTTER 20CV1539223 CASE NO 202401751/A4 NCN: [2025] EWCA Crim 194 |
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before:
LORD JUSTICE COULSON
MR JUSTICE LAVENDER
MRS JUSTICE HEATHER WILLILAMS
REX
V
RAJA WAQAS
__________
Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________
NON-COUNSEL APPLICATION
_________
APPROVED JUDGMENT
MR JUSTICE LAVENDER:
The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against the total sentence of 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment imposed on him on 15 April 2024 in the Crown Court at Warwick for two offences to which he had pleaded guilty in the same court on 9 November 2023. Those offences were count 2, possessing a class A drug (MDMA) with intent to supply it to another, for which he was sentenced to 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment, and count 1, possessing a class B drug (cannabis) with intent to supply it to another, for which he was given a concurrent sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment.
When he was arrested on 7 October 2023 the applicant was in possession of a cardboard box containing 2000 or more MDMA pills and the keys to a car which contained 5 kilograms of cannabis. The applicant was on licence when he committed these offences, having been sentenced on 24 September 2021 to a total of 3 years’ imprisonment for possession of cocaine with intent to supply and possession of two firearms. The judge assessed the applicant’s role as significant and placed count 2 in category 2 in the relevant offence-specific sentencing guideline, which is based on an indicative quantity of 1300 tablets. That gave a starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment and a range from 6 years and 6 months to 10 years.
The applicant’s previous convictions and the fact that he was on licence were significant aggravating factors. The judge also took into account the mitigating factors, which included the applicant’s difficult upbringing, his recent bereavements, his self-harming while in prison and his mother’s terminal illness. The judge said that the sentence would have been 9 years’ imprisonment, but for the applicant’s guilty plea, on account of which he reduced the sentence by one-quarter.
It is submitted that the judge was wrong to conclude that the applicant’s role was significant, but there was no basis for according him a lesser role, given, as the judge noted, that he was trusted with a significant quantity of drugs. He told the psychiatrist who interviewed him that he had been pressured into committing the offences for which he had been sentenced in 2021, but he did not say that in relation to these offences, which he said he committed because he was facing eviction and needed the money, and he was to be paid £1,000.
It is also submitted that the judge was wrong to place count 2 in category 2 because there was evidence that the applicant was also involved in street dealing. But what he was doing when he was arrested was plainly not street dealing.
Finally, it is submitted that the judge did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors, but we consider that the judge was entitled to take the view that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors.
It is not arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive. We refuse leave to appeal.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400
Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk