No doubt you will remember the appalling tragedies in Nottingham in summer of last year, where six people were attacked and three died – it lead the national news for a number of days as we learned two of the victims who were killed were University of Nottingham students on their way home from a night out at the end of their first year. Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley-Kumar, both 19 were killed in a knife attack in Ilkeston Road in Nottingham in the early hours of the morning on the way home from what Grace’s father has called “a great night out”. Shortly afterwards, Ian Coates was killed as he got in to his vehicle to drive to work as a school caretaker and his van was taken, tragically close to his retirement from his work where he was obviously well loved.
In addition to the families of the three who died who must live with their appalling loss, it’s also important to think about Wayne Birkett, Sharon Miller and Marcin Gawronski – they were very seriously injured in the vehicle carnage which followed the fatal attacks and must now live with the mental impact of the incident for years to come, in addition to their physical injuries.
Late last year, thirty-two year old Valdo Calocane, also known as Adam Mendes, appeared at Nottingham Crown Court having been charged with very serious offences. He pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder, but guilty to three alternative charges of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (DR) for the fatal knife attacks and to three charges of attempted murder for the vehicle attacks. The case was adjourned to allow the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether they should accept the alternative pleas for the killings or whether or push ahead with a full trial for murder and allow a jury to decide.
THREE PSYCHIATRISTS
We learned today the CPS has decided to accept the alternative pleas and it has provoked significant reaction, as a tragic case like this always would. As always at the interface of mental health and criminal justice, there is a lot of confusion amidst the consternation about what has happened and I wanted to do a short post with links to others I have written to explain what all of these things are. I make no comment about the particular case, because like most people, I’ve only read media coverage. There is enough of it to make me see why the CPS has decided to accept the alternative pleas, so I can only hope this post helps explain what’s gone on here but I can also see why people online are asking questions.
In particular, I can see why Grace O’Malley-Kumar’s father is stating this outcome is not “justice”, in his eyes.
We know Calocane was examined by three psychiatrists whilst he has been on remand pending trial, albeit none of them examined him until November ’23, five months after the incident. It is established he lives with paranoid schizophrenia and was described as “extremely ill” at the time of the attacks. That said, the psychiatrists appear to have agreed that he would have had insight in to what he did and it is presumably for that reason, his defence is not one of insanity. Insanity means someone did not know what they were doing or did not know what they were doing was wrong, because of their mental illness but that has not been the assessment in this case. Diminished responsibility means the person is still legally responsible for their crimes, albeit full accountability is not established because they were affected to a certain degree by their illness.
DR is what’s known as a ‘partial defence’, originally covered in section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957. The law was updated later by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and it involves a four-stage assessment, each part of which must be satisfied for a partial defence of DR to succeed –
- Whether the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning;
- If so, whether it had arisen from a recognised medical condition;
- If so, whether it had substantially impaired his ability either to understand the nature of his conduct or to form a rational judgment or to exercise self-control (or any combination);
- If so, whether it provided an explanation for his conduct.
DOES THIS MATTER?
You’ll have to form your own view about that and there are a number of ways in which to think about it:
- Murder versus manslaughter —
- Of course, it may be thought a trial for murder and a decision by a jury of peers is a better way of ensuring the “right” outcome and achieving justice, even if the outcome is still manslaughter (DR), at least that’s after a full airing of all the evidence and all the history and issues.
- A murder conviction would mean a life-sentence is mandatory – this is not the case with a conviction for manslaughter. Life imprisonment is an option for the judge, but it’s mandatory after conviction for murder.
- Murder means prison, not hospital – of course, there are a number of examples where mentally unwell defendants are convicted of murder but upon arrival in prison are transferred from prison to hospital within days, sometimes within hours;
- But conviction for manslaughter (DR) may mean no time spent in prison at all – it may depend on your politics and how you want your justice system as to whether that matters but some criminals convicted of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility do go straight to prison and stay there.
- Some may think conviction for murder means more control because overall responsibility for anyone’s release remains with criminal justice bodies like the Parole Board, not the NHS.
- But if someone is sentenced to hospital under the MHA, decisions about discharge are ultimately with the Secretary of State for Justice, not the NHS.
- We also know from court proceedings —
- The prosecution accepted there was a “clear intention to kill”.
- The killings were planned for, involving preparation which included obtaining knives and carrying them to the attacks.
- There were no significant concerns about his mental health in police custody after his arrest for these killings and attempted killings.
- You can read detail about years of police and mental health service contact in another post I’ve done.
- It involved him being ‘sectioned’ on four separate occasions, arrested for several offences including damaging several people’s room doors in university accommodation, no doubt creating fear their rooms were being invaded; as well as violence towards police officers and work colleagues.
- He was wanted for arrest at the time of the killings, after having been summonsed to court for assaulting a police officer nine months earlier and failing to show up.
- Does this affect whether the attacker will end up in prison or hospital once sentenced? —
- Not really, at least not in the short-term.
- Sentencing for this kind of manslaughter can still include a straight-forward prison sentence of X number of years. Equally, it could be the judge seeks to impose an order under the MHA – either s37/41 (a restricted hospital) order or a s45A (hybrid) order.
- We know he was flanked in the dock of the court by several people but that two of them were NHS workers so I presume he is currently detained in a hospital under the MHA and I’m assuming he’s there under either s35 or s36 Mental Health Act 1983, for psychiatric reports and / or treatment for his condition, pending his hearing.
- If it is felt that he needs ongoing hospitalisation, then whether he is sentenced to hospital or prison for manslaughter, there is a mechanism under the MHA to transfer to hospital any prisoner who requires NHS care – this would be under s47 MHA for convicted prisoners, which he now is.
- But the judge will be weighing up whether to impose a s37/41 or a s45A order and we’ll learn that outcome later today or tomorrow – I will update this post or write another, once I hear of it.
- Why did the CPS not prosecute him for murder? —
- Only those with access to the specific facts and reports will know this, but it will be predicated on how it would be the CPS could prove murder in a trial.
- The prosecutor will know what the psychiatric reports say from the three forensic psychiatrists and will form a view about how probable it is they could argue against the relevant of a diminished responsibility defence.
- We do know the acceptance of these pleas follows consultation with the victims’ families, albeit we see from the interview by Grace’s father that he does not agree such a plea should be accepted.
- The CPS must by law make their prosecution decisions on the basis of the Code for Crown Prosecutors – is it more likely than not a jury, properly directed according to law, will find the defendant guilty of three murders?
- We must assume they do not think that was likely, because if they did, they would be duty bound to prosecute for it.
If the CPS had pushed for a full trial, we would have to assume the defence would submit their partial defence against the charges of murder and it would have been up to the jury to decide whether that defence was made out. This would mean all the relevant witnesses giving oral evidence and the reports from the three psychiatrists outlining he had insight in to his actions along with acceptance of doing the physical actions which brought about these sad outcomes. You can see how a diminished responsibility argument starts to form but you may still have your view about accepting pleas.
Whatever your view, it should be born in mind: these remain incredibly serious charges and the outcome, whether it be prison or hospital, could mean life spent detained in either or both kinds of institution. It’s quite possible it won’t be known for many years to come whether that will be the outcome, but final sentencing by the court will help us understand it.
THE MENTAL HEALTH CARD
Social media comment here has included a number of suggestions the defendant has ‘played the mental health card’. It was also pointed out the defendant appeared to have hidden somewhere until he could rush Barnaby and attack him and that he’d taken the trouble to buy weapons, suggesting pre-meditation – surely that makes it murder not manslaughter? And it has been said hospital – if that’s where the defendant ends up, we’re yet to learn the final outcome – would be a “soft option”.
I’ve written about exactly these issues before after another random killing in the north-east of England. I refer you to that post if you want to read more about those three specific points, but I’ve re-read my post in light of these appalling events and don’t think I’d say anything differently here – hence a link to that if you are wondering about any of those things.
The sentencing hearing continues and it may last in to Wednesday. It has involved a detailed outline of Mr Calocane’s contact with the police and mental health services during his time as a student at the university.
In response to the acceptance of pleas to manslaughter (DR), the CPS prosecutor said —
“We have also consulted with the families of the deceased. We considered carefully representations made in the course of those consultations; we also considered the particular gravity and complexity of this case, including that which we submit are the grossly aggravating factors of the multiplicity of fatal and intended fatal offending. In these circumstances, the Crown concluded that it was appropriate to accept the pleas to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility.
For the avoidance of any possible doubt, it is the Crown’s position that the appalling facts of this case render it to be one of the utmost seriousness.”
NB: this is the latest in post about the terrible events in Nottingham, June 2023. You can find all the others collated on a specific Nottingham resources page along with other materials, inc reports and legal documents.
Winner of the President’s Medal, the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award
All opinions expressed are my own – they do not represent the views of any organisation. (c) Michael Brown, 2024
I try to keep this blog up to date, but inevitably over time, amendments to the law as well as court rulings and other findings from inquests and complaints processes mean it is difficult to ensure all the articles and pages remain current. Please ensure you check all legal issues in particular and take appropriate professional advice where necessary.
Government legislation website – www.legislation.gov.uk
Mental Health Cop 