Naomi Celia Horsfield acquitted in ACT Magistrates Court

Naomi Celia Horsfield faced the ACT Magistrates Court on Tuesday.

She was acquitted of administering, or causing to be taken by another person, an injurious substance with intent.

A back up charge of spiking a drink was dismissed.

Ms Horsfield had previously pleaded not guilty and contested the charges at a hearing.

On June 23, 2021 both women were working in the self-service check-out area in a Woolworths supermarket.

Magistrate Ken Archer said the alleged victim had "made a habit of having a water bottle with her" during shifts.

When the water bottle was on a shelf, Ms Horsfield approached it and "for reasons unknown" put something in it, he said.

Ms Horsfield had put an amount of hand sanitiser into the other woman's water bottle.

"When [the alleged victim] drank from the water bottle she sensed and experienced the sensation associated with something having contaminated her water," Mr Archer said.

The woman then coughed and spluttered, describing the taste to be "quite strong" while previously giving evidence to the court.

The alleged victim reported it to police.

On Tuesday, a prosecutor argued there was enough evidence to prove the hand sanitiser would be "injurious" if consumed.

The prosecutor said there was evidence during the hearing that the alleged victim had seen a doctor as a result of ingesting the chemical and feeling a "burning sensation" down her throat.

"Prior to adding the substance to the drink bottle, [Ms Horsfield] applied it to her hands as well," the prosecutor said.

"It's a matter of common knowledge that a bottle with warning signs on it would be detrimental [to ingest]."

Mr Archer said he was "slightly skeptical" of the prosecution's submissions.

Defence barrister Travis Jackson argued the court could not accept the sanitiser bottle shown in CCTV footage was the same bottle photographed by police five days later. These images were then tendered to the court as evidence.

Mr Jackson said "a form of discomfort" was not enough to prove the sanitiser was an injurious substance as required for the charge.

"There is nothing on the label that says do not consume, from memory," Mr Jackson said.

Mr Acher ultimately found that a feeling of "discomfort" after ingesting a liquid doesn't prove "the nature of the substance itself".

"Vodka, whiskeys and the like, to people who do not drink them, would cause something akin to pain or discomfort," Mr Archer said.

He said there was no expert evidence before him about the possible danger of consuming hand sanitiser.

READ ALSO:

He stated that while the bottle was labelled "danger, keep out of reach of children, flammable liquid" and contained 70 per cent denatured ethyl alcohol, he was "not sure innately of the effect" of consuming the chemical.

"I'm unable without further analysis ... to be satisfied to the requisite standard," Mr Archer said.

"It may be that in a general sense hand and surface spray is not something that should be ingested."

WARNING: Hand sanitiser is for external use only. If ingested, seek medical attention immediately.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: