Repeat Class A Supply on Licence: Deterrent Uplift Within (and Slightly Above) Category 3 Significant Role Is Not Manifestly Excessive

1. Introduction

In R v Franzen [2026] EWCA Crim 1159, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (Lord Justice Jeremy Baker, Mr Justice Bryan and HHJ Lickley KC) dismissed an appeal against sentence from the Crown Court at Liverpool (HHJ Ian Harris).

The appellant pleaded guilty to three Class A drug offences: (i) possession with intent to supply heroin, and (ii) two counts of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs (crack cocaine and heroin). The offending formed part of a “county lines” operation linked to Merseyside and operating in Scotland.

The central issue on appeal was narrow: whether concurrent sentences of five years’ imprisonment (with an asserted “after trial” figure of seven years and six months) were manifestly excessive, given that the sentencing judge treated the appellant as performing a Category 3, Significant Role under the drug guideline and applied a substantial upward adjustment for aggravating features.

2. Summary of the Judgment

  • The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge’s classification of the offending as Category 3, Significant Role.
  • It accepted that more serious Category 3 significant role cases can be imagined, but held this did not make the present sentence excessive.
  • It treated as especially weighty aggravation that the appellant:
    • had recently served lengthy custody for Class A supply,
    • was on licence at the time (including for serious violence), and
    • persisted in serious drug offending despite prior substantial sentences.
  • The sentence imposed (only just above the guideline range for a single offence before plea credit), despite three offences involving two Class A drugs, was held to be not manifestly excessive.
  • The appeal was dismissed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment does not cite prior case-law authorities. Its framework is instead driven by:

  • the Sentencing Council’s drug offence guideline structure (role and harm categories, starting points and ranges); and
  • the orthodox appellate approach to sentence appeals (intervention only where a sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle).

Although no earlier authorities are named, the court’s reasoning reflects a familiar appellate stance: substantial deference to a sentencing judge’s evaluation where the judge has applied the guideline correctly, identified relevant aggravation/mitigation, and reached a sentence within the rational range of outcomes.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(a) Guideline anchoring: Category 3, Significant Role

The sentencing judge concluded the appellant held a significant role, citing operational/management function, awareness of scale, expectation of significant financial advantage, and demonstrated trust (notably the cash found). The judge then selected Category 3 with a stated starting point of 4 years 6 months and range 3 years 6 months to 7 years (for a single offence).

On appeal, the appellant did not challenge the categorisation; indeed counsel accepted it was “apparent from the Basis of Plea”. That concession effectively shifted the dispute to whether the upward movement within (or slightly beyond) the range was justified.

(b) Aggravation: repeat Class A supply and offending on licence as the “key” drivers

The Court of Appeal identified as “key aggravating features” that the appellant had recently served lengthy custody for Class A supply and was on licence (including for a serious violence sentence) when he reoffended. The court endorsed the sentencing judge’s assessment that prior sentences had not deterred the appellant: “It seems, regrettably, that neither prison nor community sentences have hindered your commission of further serious offences”.

The appellate court treated these features as legitimately justifying a marked uplift, and expressly framed the outcome in deterrent terms: repeat Class A dealing, undeterred by lengthy custody, should attract a deterrent sentence.

(c) Multiple offences and concurrency

A notable aspect of the appellate reasoning is its emphasis that the judge was sentencing for three separate offences involving two different Class A drugs. Even though the judge imposed concurrent terms, the court treated the case as materially more serious than a single-count case and used that to support the overall level of sentence.

(d) The “double counting” submission: graft phone and travel

The appellant argued that the use of a “graft phone” and travel were “an essential ingredient of significant role offending” and therefore should not have been treated as additional aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal did not resolve this as a discrete doctrinal point. Instead, it held that—even “quite apart” from other features— the combination of (i) multiple offences/two Class A drugs, and (ii) the especially weighty aggravation of recent custodial history and licence status, justified the sentence level. In practical terms, the court signalled that any arguable overstatement in subsidiary aggravation would not render the overall sentence manifestly excessive where the principal aggravators powerfully support the uplift.

(e) The appellate test applied: “not manifestly excessive”

The Court of Appeal’s conclusion turned on proportionality within the guideline architecture: the “after trial” figure was “only just above” the single-offence range, yet it was addressing multi-count Class A offending and a demonstrably persistent offender. The court therefore characterised the outcome as a “condign” (i.e., fitting) sentence.

3.3 Impact

  • Deterrence for recidivist Class A supply: The judgment underlines that where an offender returns to Class A supply soon after lengthy custody—particularly while on licence—courts can justify substantial uplifts within (and, if warranted, slightly above) guideline ranges without triggering successful “manifestly excessive” appeals.
  • Licence status as a high-weight aggravator: The court treated offending on licence (including for serious violence) as central, reinforcing that breach of rehabilitative opportunity is highly aggravating in drugs sentencing.
  • Multi-count reality check: Even where concurrency is imposed, appellate review may assess seriousness by reference to the fact of multiple Class A counts and multiple drug types, supporting higher overall sentencing outcomes than a single-count comparison might suggest.
  • Practical limits of “double counting” complaints: The decision suggests that arguments about whether features are inherent in a role category may not succeed unless they materially drive the final sentence; strong, independent aggravators can make such disputes immaterial.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

“Category 3, Significant Role”
A guideline classification combining (i) the offender’s role (here, more than a mere courier/user—operational involvement with expectation of gain) and (ii) the harm category (often linked to drug quantity and scale). It provides a starting point and sentencing range.
“Manifestly excessive”
A high threshold for sentence appeals: it is not enough that another judge might have imposed less; the sentence must fall outside the range of reasonable outcomes or be wrong in principle.
“Being concerned in the supply”
Liability for participating in supply activity (e.g., handling communications, arranging deals, facilitating distribution), even if not personally handing over drugs.
“County lines”
Organised drug supply model in which a distribution line (often phone-based) is run from one area into another, using dedicated phones and coordinated travel.
Concurrent sentences
Prison terms served at the same time. Courts may still treat multiple offences as increasing overall seriousness, even if the final structure is concurrent.
Credit for guilty plea
A reduction from the sentence that would otherwise be imposed after trial, reflecting the timing and value of the plea.

5. Conclusion

R v Franzen [2026] EWCA Crim 1159 confirms a robust sentencing approach to repeat Class A drug supply, particularly where the offender reoffends on licence and soon after lengthy custody for similar conduct. The Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the appeal shows that, once a correct guideline category is adopted, strong aggravators—recidivism, breach of licence, multi-count Class A dealing—can justify a substantial uplift and a deterrent outcome without rendering the sentence manifestly excessive.