Franzen, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 24 December 2025, after pleading guilty before magistrates, the Appellant was committed to the Crown Court for sentence for one offence of possessing heroin with intent to supply and two offences of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs. [1]

On 4 February 2026, the Appellant received concurrent five-year custodial sentences for all three offences. [2] The offending involved a “county lines” drug operation, a dedicated phone, drug supply activity, drugs and cash found at the Appellant’s address, and approximately 363.6 grams of drugs sold during the relevant period. [3][4][5]

The Appellant had 17 previous convictions for 30 offences, including previous drug-supply offences, and was on licence when the current offending occurred. [6] The appeal was brought with permission on the sole ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. [7]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the concurrent five-year sentences were manifestly excessive. [7]
2. Whether the sentencing judge was entitled to increase the sentence substantially above the guideline starting point because of the multiple offences, previous convictions, offending on licence, organised drug operation, mixing of drugs, and entrusted cash. [8][9]

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive because the sentence imposed before credit for the guilty pleas was too high. [10]
• The Appellant accepted that the offending fell within Category 3 significant-role offending and that several aggravating factors justified an increase above the starting point. [11]
• It was submitted that use of the dedicated phone and travel were inherent in significant-role offending and should not have been treated as additional aggravating factors. [11]
• The offending did not justify a sentence at the top of, or above, the Category 3 range; a sentence of approximately six years after trial was proposed as appropriate. [12]

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The sentencing judge classified the offending under the Drugs Guidelines as Category 3 significant-role offending, with a starting point of four years and six months and a range of three years and six months to seven years for a single offence. [8]

The Court accepted that more serious Category 3 cases could be envisaged, but emphasised that the Appellant was being sentenced for three separate offences involving two Class A drugs. [12]

The principal aggravating features were the Appellant’s recent lengthy sentence for supplying Class A drugs and his commission of the present offences while on licence for a serious offence of violence. [12] The Court considered these factors, together with the other aggravating features identified by the sentencing judge, sufficient to justify the sentence imposed. [13]

The Court also noted the organised nature of the offending, the use of a dedicated phone, travel connected with the operation, involvement in mixing drugs, the Appellant’s trusted role, and the amount of cash held at his address. [9][11][13]

The Court regarded the sentence as only just above the range for a single offence, despite applying to multiple offences and before credit for the guilty pleas. It therefore concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. [14]

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. [15]

The concurrent five-year sentences remained in force. The Court characterised them as a condign sentence for repeated serious drug offending and indicated that further Class A drug offending after lengthy custodial sentences may attract a deterrent sentence. [16][14] No broader implications were discussed and no new precedent was set.