Last week, the Court of Appeal heard submissions the restricted hospital order sentence for Valdo Calocane, who pleaded guilty in January to three offences of manslaughter (diminished responsibility) and three attempted murders in Nottingham, was unduly lenient. This followed referral from the Attorney General who took the view the sentence was unduly lenient.
The referral has been dismissed and the judgment published this morning. Three Appeal judges have ruled the sentence was not unduly lenient.
Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr KC concluded the reasons by saying –
“This was a sensitive sentencing exercise that was not straightforward. But there was no error, in the approach adopted by the judge. His conclusion that, on the facts of this case, a penal element was unnecessary and the better protection of the public required a hospital and restrictions order, rather than a hybrid order, was one properly open to him. We do not consider it arguable that the resulting sentences were unduly lenient.”
This has to be right, as the law stands. Emma Webber, mother of Barnaby Webber, has said in response to the ruling they are “not surprised” and it illustrates the need for “urgent reform” of UK homicide law. In fairness to Mrs Webber, discussion about reform of UK homicide law has been ongoing for twenty-years that I’m aware of so it’s hard to argue she’s wrong.
NOT UNEXPECTED
The Court of Appeal’s full judgment is worth reading and it did emphasise certain previous Court of Appeal cases on this legal point: whether to impose a restricted hospital order or a hybrid order. Previous Court of Appeal rulings in R v Vowles and others and R v Edwards examined this, as I’ve previously covered on this website. One aspect of the psychiatric evidence emphasised by Lady Chief Justice Carr was that of Professor Blackwood, at para 85 –
“The key factor in a case like this, when deciding whether or not a penal element is required, is the strength of the link between the offender’s impairment and the offending in question. Here, in the words of Professor Blackwood, at the time of the assaults the offender was “in the grip of a severe psychotic episode … entirely driven by the psychotic process”.
From reading the judgment, I get the impression the Court of Appeal believed the Attorney General’s position was barely arguable, in law – the ruling is quite dismissive in the sense of emphasising the trial judge did make mention and take account of factors which counsel for the AG felt had been absent. One legal commentator on X (Twitter) said this outcome was “not unexpected”.
None of this takes away anything from the family’s other observation they believe a public inquiry is required because they doubt, perhaps naturally, how “cohesive” eight different inquiries, reviews and other investigations will be to have full bearing on the killings of three victims and the attempts to kill three others, with all the impact that continues to have on countless people.
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 