[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Waqas, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 194 (24 January 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/194.html Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 194

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT WARWICK
HHJ ANTHONY POTTER
20CV1539223

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		24 January 2025

MR JUSTICE LAVENDER:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. It is not arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive. We refuse leave to appeal.