Judges to decide whether Nottingham killer received ‘unduly lenient’ sentence

Three senior judges will today decide whether Valdo Calocane, who stabbed three people to death in Nottingham last year, received an “unduly lenient” sentence.

Calocane, 32, was convicted in January after pleading guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility of Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Ian Coates, and the attempted murder of three others.

He was received an indefinite hospital order – but three judges will decide today whether that should be changed, after the Attorney General referred the case to the Court of Appeal.

At a hearing last week, lawyers for the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) said Calocane should receive a “hybrid” life sentence.

This would lead to him being treated for his paranoid schizophrenia before serving the remainder of his prison sentence.

A judicial spokesman confirmed that Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Judge Lord Edis and Mr Justice Garnham will give their ruling at 10am on Tuesday at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Calocane fatally stabbed students Mr Webber and Mrs O’Malley-Kumar, both 19, and school caretaker Mr Coates, 65, in the early hours of June 13 last year.

Read more:
Timeline of missed opportunities to stop Valdo Calocale
Families ‘traumatized’ by ‘barbaric’ police WhatsApp messages

He then stole Mr Coates’ van and ran over three pedestrians before being arrested.

Attorney Deanna Heer KC, representing the AGO, told the court last week that Calocane’s “extreme” crimes warranted “the imposition of a sentence with a penal element, an element of punishment.”

Representing Calocane, Peter Joyce KC said the crimes would have been committed “but for the psychosis” and argued that a hybrid order would mean Calocane would be “punished for being mentally ill”.

The three judges cannot examine or change the crimes for which Calocane was convicted, nor consider any new evidence related to the case.

Instead, they should focus on assessing whether the sentence was unduly lenient based on the evidence the sentencing judge considered at the time.