Thoughts on the case of Valdo Calocane
The events that took place in Nottingham on 13 June 2023 are well known and well reported. Following the attacks, Valdo Calocane was charged with three counts of murder for the deaths of Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley- Kumar and Ian Coates and three counts of attempted murder for three others.
The charges of murder and attempted murder were seen as an obvious result given the circumstances. For the majority of the period before the proceedings commenced, the deceased victim’s families believed that convictions for murder were a given.
However, as the hearing date got closer and psychiatric expert evidence was gathered, this changed. The families were informed that instead of murder, the Prosecution would be accepting pleas of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
The Calocane case has led to wide-spread reviews of the various agencies involved in the potential failings that resulted in the events of 13 June 2023. One of the agencies subjected to inspection is the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The Crown Prosecution Inspectorate report was published following this review on 25 March 2024. It concluded that the CPS had acted lawfully in accepting the pleas but urged a review of the Victim’s Code to ensure better liaison between the CPS / Police and families.
Most recently the Quality Care Commission (CQC) published the second part of their review on 13 August 2024. This review looked at the available evidence related to the care of Calocane during the time he was under the care of the Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust. The report found that without action, the issues identified in the report would continue to pose an inherent risk to public safety. The report further noted that the issues identified at Nottingham Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust were not unique.
Lack of awareness of the Unduly Lenient Sentencing scheme:
A case with a similar fact pattern as the Calocane case came across our desks. However, in this case the family were not made aware of the Unduly Lenient Sentences (ULS) provision. Under the ULS scheme, anyone can ask for a Crown Court sentence to be reviewed by the Attorney General’s office if it meets particular criteria.
In our view, it is fundamental that victims and victims’ families are made aware of the ULS scheme. The ULS scheme has a very strict 28-day referral window. There is no power to extend the time limit or to apply for leave to refer out-of-time. This window opens on the day following the sentencing decision and is open for 28-day calendar (not business) days.
In the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales, section 9 encompasses the right to be given information about the outcome of the case and any appeals. Moreover, the provisions regarding unduly lenient sentencing provisions are contained in paragraphs 9.4 - 9.5. Unfortunately, it seems that this is not always passed on or explained to victims and their families.
Once a referral under this scheme has been made to the Attorney General’s Office, a review will then be carried out to decide if the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal. It is for the Court of Appeal to determine if the sentence is appropriate.
There are a number of ways that a referral to an Attorney General’s Office can arise. One of these is that the Attorney General may be contacted directly by the public. Evidently, this places high profile cases in an advantageous position.
The Calocane case consumed the news and media. This meant that even if the victim’s families were not aware of the ULS scheme, it could have been brought to their attention by others and the CPS would have found it difficult to avoid the issue, given the media attention.
Where does that leave families who have been through similar circumstances but for some reason or another, they are not made aware of the provision? This is especially the case where the family resides outside the UK and have to liaise with authorities remotely.
Victims and families are often completely reliant on the information and guidance provided to them by the Crown Prosecution Service and their Victim/ Family Liaison Officer. Not many families have access to independent legal advice, especially in cases that don’t attract media attention.
We are aware that cases are not always straightforward and easy to navigate for the Prosecution, but familiarity with and adherence to the Victim’s Code is essential in avoiding friction in sensitive cases.
Implications beyond criminal sentence:
Missing the opportunity to have a sentence reviewed has implications beyond the criminal sentence itself.
When a Judge or Magistrate imposes a sentence, they also have the ability to impose an ancillary order. Therefore, when a sentence cannot be appealed, neither can the lack of imposed ancillary orders.
Furthermore, the case of Calocane ended without a full examination of the facts. The imposition of a hospital order meant the cases were limited to;
- evidence that the defendant had carried out the act of killing the victim(s) and
- evidence of their mental illness.
Is this not enough? The Attorney General referred Calocane’s sentence to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient. However, Senior Judges ruled that the sentence given was not unduly lenient and was within the guidelines. In the absence of a referral, the only forum in which the evidence might be examined is the Coroner’s Court. What if the coroner is already satisfied as to the four statutory questions:
- Who died?
- When did they die?
- Where did they die?
- How did they die?
Does the coroner really need to hold an inquest? If the deceased was not in state custody and the medical cause of death is clear, what else can the coroner do? The coroner is effectively bound by the decision of the Crown Court to arrive at a cause of unlawful killing. From a family’s perspective, the central question will be – was the death preventable? Did the mental health agencies, local authority, police etc owe the victims a duty of care in managing the defendant prior to the incident and if so, was that duty breached? In other words, how far should a coroner (as an agent of the Crown) proceed in examining the facts surrounding an unlawful killing in order to help prevent similar occurrences? To what extent should a coroner act in protecting the public when faced with such violent crimes?
The coroner has the power to issue a report into preventing future deaths. They are often referred to as a “PFD”. It obliges the relevant agency to report to the coroner on improvements to be made to processes and systems under their control, to help prevent future deaths. However, they should not be broad or general in their scope. They should focus on particular issues, and they are not the main point of an inquest. They are ancillary to the inquest and if there is no need for an inquest, a PFD will not follow.
Families often struggle with these issues and feel shortchanged by the justice system when they should be central to the process. Explaining options and advancing a family’s position within the system can be difficult and requires a lot of determination, something which has not been in short supply in the Calocane case. Unfortunately, not all families are afforded the same opportunities, and a review of the victim’s code is long overdue.