R v Raja Waqas

A renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused where it is not arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive. A significant role assessment may be upheld where the offender was trusted with a substantial quantity of drugs and there is no proper basis for a lesser role. The categorisation must reflect the conduct constituting the offending; evidence of other involvement in street dealing does not alter conduct which was plainly not street dealing. Previous convictions and offending while on licence may outweigh substantial personal mitigation. A guilty plea and mitigating circumstances do not make a sentence excessive where the sentencing judge has properly balanced the aggravating and mitigating features.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against a total sentence of six years and nine months’ imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court at Warwick on 15 April 2024. He had pleaded guilty to possessing MDMA and cannabis with intent to supply.

At arrest, he possessed 2,000 or more MDMA tablets and the keys to a car containing 5 kilograms of cannabis. The sentencing judge assessed his role as significant and placed the MDMA offence in category 2. The applicant challenged the role assessment, the category placement and the weight given to mitigation. The central issue was whether it was arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Lavender, refused leave to appeal.

1. The sentencing judge had assessed the MDMA offence by reference to a category 2 offence and a significant role. Category 2 had an indicative quantity of 1,300 tablets, with a starting point of eight years and a range of six years and six months to ten years.
2. There was no proper basis for according the applicant a lesser role. He had been trusted with a significant quantity of drugs. His account that he had been pressured in relation to the offences for which he was sentenced in 2021 did not assist him because he had not advanced that account in relation to the present offences. He had said that the present offending was motivated by financial need and that he was to receive £1,000.
3. The evidence that the applicant had also been involved in street dealing did not demonstrate that category 2 was wrong. The conduct at the time of arrest was plainly not street dealing.
4. The judge was entitled to conclude that the aggravating factors, including the applicant’s previous convictions and the fact that he was on licence, outweighed the mitigating factors. Those factors included his difficult upbringing, recent bereavements, self-harm in prison and his mother’s terminal illness.
5. The sentence had been reduced from nine years to six years and nine months to reflect the guilty plea. It was not arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Leave to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 194.
2. Crown Court at Warwick: On 15 April 2024, the applicant was sentenced to six years and nine months’ imprisonment for possession of MDMA with intent to supply, with a concurrent sentence of three years for possession of cannabis with intent to supply.