No: 2008/01389/A2 
Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWCA Crim 1480
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2 

Friday, 6th June 2008
 
B E F O R E:
 
LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER 
 
MR JUSTICE BURNETT 
 
HIS HONOUR JUDGE ROBERTS QC 
(sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division) 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R E G I N A 

‑v‑ 

STEVEN SIBULA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of  
 Wordwave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr J Janes appeared on behalf of the Appellant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER:  Steven John Sibula is aged 31.  On 18th January 2008 in the Crown Court at Nottingham, he pleaded guilty to administering a poison or noxious substance with intent.  On 8th February 2008 Judge Teare sentenced him to 3 years' imprisonment, with a direction that the 105 days spent on remand should count towards his sentence.
2.	He appeals against his sentence with the leave of Silber J, who granted an extension of time of three days.
3.	The facts of the case can be quite shortly stated and they are these.  Shortly before the close of business on 30th November 2004, Ms Mann, who was a customer adviser at a branch of the NatWest Bank in Nottingham, was asked by one of her colleagues if she could speak to the appellant, who had asked for some financial advice.  Ms Mann invited the appellant into her office at the rear of the bank, and she took him through the process of financial advice as he informed her that he had some £5,000 he wished to invest.  He appeared articulate and well spoken and the interview was progressing quite normally, although she noted, with hindsight, that some of his answers had been rather short.
4.	As the interview was coming to an end, Ms Mann was momentarily distracted.  Whilst she dealt with some papers, the appellant produced a bottle and sprayed fluid on to her face and clothes.  The fluid smelt of lighter fuel and she was not surprisingly absolutely terrified.  The appellant then held up a cigarette lighter and told her to, "Stop screaming, sit down and shut up", and that if she was not quiet he would burn her.  Ms Mann decided to run past him out of the room and did so, screaming for help as she did.
5.	One of her colleagues intercepted the appellant in order to give Ms Mann the opportunity of getting away.  He noticed that the appellant's eyes seemed to have a vacant expression and also there was a strong smell of petrol.  He retreated from the appellant, together with other members of the staff, to a more secure area of the bank.  They were able to get behind a secure door and contact the police.  The appellant remained in the bank for a while before leaving.  The staff were able to leave the bank safely.
6.	The appellant's fingerprints were found at the scene, but he himself was not traced until he was arrested in 2007.  When interviewed, he claimed it must have been his twin brother who had committed the offence.
7.	The appellant is a man of previous good character, save for one motoring matter.  He had apparently fled from Zimbabwe and was an asylum seeker in this country.  As far as we understand it, his claim for asylum remains unresolved at the present time.
8.	The court had a pre‑sentence report from a Mr White, a probation officer in Leeds.  He drew attention to the fact that what was particularly disturbing about the offence was the apparent randomness of the appellant's actions.  He attacked the victim for no apparent reason.
9.	The appellant claimed that there had been no pre‑planning, yet he was carrying the fuel and lighter.  The reason that he gave for that was that he was going to attend a barbecue.  That was unconvincing bearing in mind the time of year, namely November.  He could not give any reason for why he behaved as he did, other than to say that it was a cry for help and that alcohol had acted as a disinhibitor on his behaviour.  But there was no evidence apparent to the bank employees that he had been drinking, at any rate significantly.
10.	The appellant claimed to be deeply sorry for what he had done and that he had considered going back to the bank and apologising, but did not feel brave enough to do so.  It is to be noted that despite his protestations of remorse, he did not hand himself in to the police.  He claimed to be depressed due to a build‑up of problems.  He was living with a partner and child in privately‑rented accommodation in east Leeds.  He claimed also to have a fiancée and a son born in 1999 in Africa, but to have no knowledge of their whereabouts.  He also told the probation officer that he was heavily involved with a community group.
11.	The assessment of the probation officer was that the randomness and the extreme behaviour raised concerns about the appellant's state of mind whilst under stress.  On the other hand, this appeared to be an isolated incident and there was no evidence of any further offences during the 3 years that he had been at large since 2007.
12.	In passing sentence the judge said that he was confident that it was not a cry for help, nor was the offence brought on by the consumption of excess alcohol.  Nor was he persuaded the offence was unpremeditated.  He found it difficult to accept that the appellant was remorseful, bearing in mind what he had been doing over the 3 years and that he told the police lies when first questioned about the offence.  He made no recommendation for deportation, leaving it to the immigration authorities to decide what action was appropriate.
13.	We have given anxious consideration to this appeal.  It seems to us that the most pertinent factor is that the maximum penalty for the offence for which the appellant fell to be sentenced was one of 5 years' imprisonment, and further, that the indictment had been amended by the Crown and they elected not to proceed on an offence involving a more serious intent.
14.	Bearing in mind that there was a plea of guilty in this case and that the appellant required some credit for that, we have come to the conclusion that the sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was in the circumstances manifestly excessive.
15.	We note in passing that section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, dealing with inflicting grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding, a section with which this court is very familiar, likewise imposes a maximum penalty of 5 years.  We think that in the circumstances the level of penalty for those offences is of some relevance to what ought to be imposed for the present offence.  That said, there can be no doubt that this was a terrifying incident from the viewpoint of the victim and there is no real explanation for why the appellant committed this offence, which was uncharacteristic and a single offence.
16.	We have come to the conclusion that in all the circumstances the right sentence would be one of 2 years' imprisonment.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to that extent.
17.	MR JANES:  My Lord, I am grateful.