R v Joseph Hawkridge
[2023] EWCA Crim 1288
R v Valdo Calocane
14 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 490
Court of Appeal
A man committed horrific crimes while severely mentally ill. A judge gave him a hospital order instead of prison. The higher court agreed this was the right decision because his mental illness was the main cause of the crimes and keeping him in a hospital for treatment was the best way to protect the public.
Key Facts
- •Valdo Calocane attacked and killed two students and a school caretaker in Nottingham, then injured three more people by deliberately driving a stolen van into them.
- •Calocane pleaded guilty to three counts of manslaughter and three counts of attempted murder.
- •Medical experts unanimously agreed Calocane suffered from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the offenses.
- •The judge sentenced Calocane to concurrent hospital and restrictions orders under the Mental Health Act 1983.
- •The Solicitor General referred the sentences to the Court of Appeal, arguing they were unduly lenient and should have included a penal element and a hybrid order under the 1983 Act.
Legal Principles
Sentencing of offenders with mental disorders requires consideration of treatment needs, the extent to which the offense is attributable to the disorder, the need for punishment, and public protection.
R v Vowles [2015] EWCA Crim 45
A judge must carefully consider all evidence, including psychiatric opinions, and provide sound reasons for departing from imposing a penal sentence.
R v Vowles [2015] EWCA Crim 45
When considering a hospital order under s. 37 or a hybrid order under s. 45A of the Mental Health Act 1983, the court must first consider whether a s. 45A order (including a penal element) is appropriate. Only if it's not appropriate should the court proceed to a s. 37 order.
R v Edwards [2018] EWCA Crim 595
The purposes of a hospital order are rehabilitation and public protection, not punishment.
R v Nelson [2020] EWCA Crim 1615
A sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range of sentences a judge could reasonably consider appropriate.
Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989
In sentencing an offender under s. 37 MHA 1983, the court must balance the need for punishment with the need to protect the public. The need for punishment is a function of the offense's seriousness and the offender's level of responsibility.
Sentencing Council Guidelines on Manslaughter by Reason of Diminished Responsibility
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal refused leave to refer the sentences.
The judge's approach was not flawed, and his decision to impose hospital and restrictions orders instead of a hybrid order was a reasonable one given the circumstances. The court emphasized the strong link between Calocane's mental illness and the offenses, concluding that a penal element was unnecessary and that public protection was best served by continued hospital treatment.