The Court of Criminal Appeal heard evidence this week about the sentence for Valdo Calocane, the man convicted in January of the awful attacks which took place last year in Nottingham. It was announced shortly after he was sentenced that the Attorney General had referred the matter to the appeal court under the ‘unduly lenient‘ process.
Evidence was taken from counsel representing the Attorney General as well as those representing Mr Calocane and we will learn the outcome in seven days, approximately.
If you are not familiar with the background to the case or the unduly lenient process, my previous post will fill that gap for you and give detail, but the key part of the sentencing and appeal always appeared to be –
- What kind of order under the Mental Health Act 1983 should he have been given?
- He was sentenced to a restricted hospital order which means indefinite detention, in hospital only.
- He could have been sentenced to a hybrid order, which would mean hospital + prison and it could end up being indefinite or finite, depending on his healthcare progress whilst in hospital.
- The Crown Court judge chose the first option and explained his rationale in the particular circumstances.
- My previous post sets out the considerations the Court of Appeal set down in a previous appeal, the case of R v Vowles and others.
My suspicion always was this would turn on the argument a hybrid order should have been preferred and now the Attorney General’s submission has been heard in evidence, we know this was put forward. Even since this sentencing hearing in January, there have been other high-profile cases where a Crown Court judge has had to make similar decisions about which of these orders to prefer. At the heart of the decision for a judge is “whether the mental disorder could appropriately be dealt with” via the hybrid order framework – that’s wording from s45A itself, the provision which covers hybrid orders. This now having gone to the Court of Appeal, the verdict may well have impactive on future cases by setting out or reinforcing the principles of how judges should approach the decision-making when both options appear viable.
SUBMISSIONS
Deanna Heer KC outlined she was not criticising the approach of the original sentencing judge, but stated the psychiatric evidence had not commented on the need for custodial action. Counsel for the Attorney General highlighted a “significant degree of planning and pre-meditation” stating “he acted deliberately and with the intent to kill”.
“Their assessments did not include the need for punishment or a penal element, which was meant for the sentencing judge. The exceptional level of seriousness of the offences was such that the case required the imposition of a sentence with a penal element, an element of punishment.”
I admit to wondering if it was the job of forensic psychiatrists to comment on any perceived need for a custodial or penal element given that is a justice decision, not a medical one? – there is academic literature in forensic psychiatry which argues against doctors squarely parking their tanks on the legal lawns of the judiciary, so I’ll be interested to see what the Court of Appeal says about that point in particular.
Counsel for the respondent, Peter Joyce KC, submitted he had been sentenced appropriately, having been found guilty of offences which were entirely due to his mental illness adding he “is never likely to see the light of day again. The question we pose is: How can that possibly be an unduly lenient sentence in anyone’s parlance?”
This appeal is one of a number of processes which are in train following the conclusion of the Crown Court trial. You can see the others in a separate post and at the point of publishing this, the only review or appeal to conclude so far is that in to CPS decision-making which found the decisions taken were appropriate.
The families of Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Ian Coates are calling for a public inquiry. The three judges hearing this appeal from the Attorney General have retired to consider their verdict and it is due next week.
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 