A report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct in to the Leicestershire Police handling of allegations against Valdo Calocane would appear to have been leaked.
The IOPC were investigating three of the force’s officers over the report Mr Calocane assaulted two of his workmates in May 2023, only weeks before the deadly and life-altering attacks in Nottingham that June. We first learned of this incident when he was sentenced for the main attacks in January 2024. He had been working in Leicestershire and the police were contacted after he allegedly attacked two of his workmates, punching one of them to the face and pushing the other over. He was not dealt with for the incident prior to being arrested by Nottinghamshire Police for the attacks.
The IOPC has stated it will make the report public in due course but is waiting for the conclusion of all proceedings and this refers to the fact three officers are to face a misconduct meeting for alleged disciplinary matters. That meeting should have taken place during February but it was postponed the day before it was scheduled and we were initially not told why or what is happening next. It has since been made known, the IOPC are re-opening their investigation in to the officers after “significant new information” was made known to them, something initially not made known by Leicestershire Police.
For those who are not aware: misconduct hearings are usually held in public and consider cases of gross misconduct against officers. Misconduct meetings are not public and consider cases of misconduct only – this is what is happening for all three officers in Leicestershire and it means the sanction available, if misconduct is proved, is a final written warning. A sergeant, a tutor constable and a probationary constable are involved. Whether it will remain something suitable for a misconduct meeting after the re-investigation concludes, remains to be seen.
TWO ASSAULTS
Mr Calocane was accused of two assaults on his colleagues and a crime report was taken out. It seems there were various problems with the investigation, including –
- No PNC check was conducted on the suspect – this would have revealed Mr Calocane was wanted on warrant after failing to show up at court in September 2022, after he had been charged with assaulting a police officer in September 2021.
- PNC would also have shown a number of other matters you can read about in the timeline.
- No PND check was conducted either – this would have revealed more intelligence about Calocane, to suggest there were risks worth noting and prioritising.
- The probationary officer admitted not knowing the need to carry out these checks and also admitted to not thinking about preserving the CCTV of the assault from the company.
- The tutor constable admitted he had responsibility for overseeing the officer’s work and because of high crime workload of his own, hadn’t been as thorough as he should have been. Presumably, this means he’d been allocated a number of crimes to investigate and it amounted to a lot.
- The sergeant said similar things: his review of the crime report fell short of what was expected and also cited high workload as a factor, “not laziness”.
Both victims in the case were Romanian and did not speak English so there were communication difficulties establishing what exactly had gone on. There was discussion in the report in particular about a knife – it was suggested Mr Calocane had reached for a knife during the attack, but it was kicked away, under machinery. Officer A (the probationary constable) contested ever being told about a knife and without reading the IOPC’s report – as yet, unpublished – it’s difficult to untangle that one. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon to find such errors in volume crime investigation and all I’ll say for now is it’s not uncommon to hear officers feeling like this about their workloads. I had strong views as a sergeant and inspector about how many crime reports we expert operational officers to carry and I do believe that has inevitable bearing on how well and how quickly things are investigated.
The victims’ families have made known their dissatisfaction with the report and the suggested remedy, describing the proposed misconduct meeting as “secret”. It’s easy to see why the list of errors, basic as they are, would be nothing short of devastating to read and they must be wondering whether an early arrest for this matter, which would have then led to arrest on warrant for the previous assault on a police officer, would have disrupted him enough to prevent the attack the following month.
Truly awful to contemplate.
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, 2025
I am not a police officer.
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 