Busby, R. v

Sentencing for administering a poison or noxious substance with intent is fact-specific. The sentence must reflect the actual harm, the risks knowingly created and any planning, but also prompt conduct which enables the victim to receive appropriate treatment, remorse, mitigation and the guilty plea.

Before ordering immediate custody, a sentencing court must give real consideration to suspension under the applicable Imposition Guideline. It should address the identified factors in turn, including risk to the public, rehabilitation, mitigation and the effect of custody on others.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Oxford to administering Clonazolam, a noxious substance, in her step-brother's drink with intent, contrary to section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. She also pleaded guilty to possessing Clonazolam.

She received 15 months' immediate imprisonment for the principal offence and one month for possession. The victim recovered without permanent physical or mental effects. The appellant promptly disclosed what she had done and supplied the substance to paramedics, enabling appropriate treatment.

Her appeal against sentence challenged the starting point, credit for plea and mitigation, and the refusal to suspend the custodial term.

1. Appeal allowed. The 15-month sentence was manifestly excessive. Although the deliberate administration of an illegally obtained drug, with an unknown interaction with the victim's medication, plainly crossed the custody threshold, a pre-plea starting point of 20 months overstated the seriousness of this fact-specific offence.

2. The court gave substantial weight to the appellant's prompt recognition of the danger. Her disclosure to the victim's mother and production of the bottle enabled paramedics and hospital staff to identify the drug and give the victim the best prospect of recovery. The sentencing judge had not given that conduct sufficient credit.

3. The proper sentence before credit for the guilty plea was eight months' imprisonment. After credit, it was six months.

4. The sentencing judge should also have given more serious consideration to suspension. The factors in the Imposition Guideline should have been addressed in turn. On the facts, they would almost certainly have required serious consideration of suspension: the appellant did not present a danger to the public, had no previous convictions, had a prospect of rehabilitation, and had significant personal mitigation.

5. The court substituted six months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, for the principal offence. The one-month possession sentence was also suspended. A rehabilitation activity requirement of 20 days was attached to the suspended sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted a suspended sentence: [2019] EWCA Crim 1131.
• Crown Court at Oxford: On 17 April 2019, imposed 15 months' immediate imprisonment for administering a noxious substance with intent and one month for possession of Clonazolam.