Sibula, R v

When assessing whether a custodial sentence is manifestly excessive, the court must have regard to the statutory maximum, the offence actually charged, and the reduction required for a guilty plea. The Crown’s election not to pursue an allegation involving a more serious intent is material to the proper sentencing range. Sentencing comparison with offences carrying the same maximum penalty may also assist, although the gravity and terror caused by the particular offence remain important.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Nottingham Crown Court to administering a poison or noxious substance with intent. He had sprayed a bank employee with a fluid smelling of lighter fuel, threatened to burn her with a cigarette lighter, and left the bank before later being identified and arrested.

Judge Teare imposed three years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence with leave. The central issue was whether that sentence was manifestly excessive, having regard to the five-year maximum penalty, the amended indictment, and the guilty plea.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of three years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive and was reduced to two years’ imprisonment.
2. The court gave particular weight to the fact that the maximum sentence for the offence was five years. The Crown had amended the indictment and elected not to proceed on an offence involving a more serious intent. Those matters materially limited the appropriate sentencing level.
3. The guilty plea required proper credit. The court also regarded the five-year maximum under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 as relevant comparative context when fixing sentence.
4. The offence was nevertheless extremely serious. It caused the victim terror, involved fuel and a lighter, and had no satisfactory explanation. The court took account of its apparently isolated and uncharacteristic nature, but did not accept that it was merely a cry for help, alcohol-induced, unpremeditated, or accompanied by convincing remorse.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a sentence of two years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: On 8 February 2008, Judge Teare sentenced the appellant to three years’ imprisonment following his guilty plea.