Judges to rule on bid to change Nottingham killer’s sentence on Tuesday

Valdo Calocane was given an indefinite hospital order for killing Ian Coates, Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley-Kumar.

Valdo Calocane (Nottinghamshire Police/PA)

Three senior judges who are considering whether the sentence of triple killer Valdo Calocane is “unduly lenient” will give their decision on Tuesday.

The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis and Mr Justice Garnham will rule on whether Calocane’s indefinite hospital order should be changed after the Attorney General referred the case to the Court of Appeal.

The 32-year-old was sentenced in January for the manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility of Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Ian Coates, and the attempted murder of three others, in a spate of attacks in Nottingham last year.

At a hearing on Wednesday, barristers for the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) said Calocane should instead be given a “hybrid” life sentence, where he would first be treated for his paranoid schizophrenia before serving the remainder of his jail term in prison.

A judicial spokesperson confirmed the judges will hand down their ruling at 10am on Tuesday at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Calocane was sentenced for the fatal stabbings of students Mr Webber and Ms O’Malley-Kumar, both 19, and 65-year-old school caretaker Mr Coates in the early hours of June 13 last year.

After killing Mr Coates, Calocane stole his van and hit three pedestrians before being arrested.

Lawyer Deanna Heer KC, representing the AGO, told the court on Wednesday the “extreme” crimes warrant “the imposition of a sentence with a penal element, an element of punishment”.

Peter Joyce KC, for Calocane, said none of the offences would have been committed “but for the psychosis”, and imposing a hybrid order would mean he would be “punished for being mentally ill”.

Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis and Mr Justice Garnham cannot examine or change the offences for which Calocane was sentenced and cannot look at any new evidence related to the case.

Instead, they can only assess whether the sentence was unduly lenient based on the evidence before the sentencing judge at the time.