Appeal judges rule Nottingham triple killer's sentence was not unduly lenient

Calocane, aged 32, was given an indefinite hospital order for the manslaughter of three people in Nottingham on June 13 last year when he stabbed and killed former Bulwell Academy caretaker Ian Coates, aged 65, and 19-year-old Nottingham University students Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley-Kumar.

He also pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of three more people, whom he tried to run down with Mr Coates’ van, which he stole after stabbing him.

However, the court accepted psychiatric reports heard in court which concluded that Calocane was suffering from ‘extreme’ mental illness and described him as a ‘paranoid schizophrenic’ without which he would not have carried out the attacks.

The sentencing at the time was met with fury by the victims’ families, who said the judicial process had effectively allowed Calocane to ‘get away with murder’.

Nottinghamshire Police were also strongly criticised by the families after it emerged a warrant for Calocane’s arrest had been issued almost a year earlier.

The Attorney General referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal in February, arguing it was ‘unduly lenient’.

But this was rejected by the appeal court judges Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis and Mr Justice Garnham at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Tuesday.

Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said: “There was no error in the approach adopted by the judge.

"The sentences imposed were not arguably unduly lenient.

“Leave to refer the sentences is refused.

"It is impossible to read of the circumstances of this offending without the greatest possible sympathy for the victims of these terrible attacks and their familes and their friends.

"The victim impact statements paint a graphic picture of the appaling effects of the offender’s conduct.

"Had the offender not suffered the mental condition that he did, the sentencing judge would doubtless have been considering a whole-life term of imprisonment.

"But neither the judge, nor this court, can ignore the medical evidence as to the offender’s condition, which led to these dreadful events, or the threat to public safety, which the offender continues to pose.”

Afterwards, the victims’ families said ‘were not surprised’ by the ruling and reiterated their calls for a public inquiry.