The sentence given to Nottingham killer Valdo Calocane was not “unduly lenient”, senior judges have ruled.

Calocane, 32, was handed an indefinite hospital order for the manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility of Grace O’Malley-Kumar, Barnaby Webber and Ian Coates, and the attempted murder of three others last June.

The attacker’s guilty pleas were accepted after medical evidence showed he has paranoid schizophrenia, with the judge at his sentencing saying he would be detained at a high-security hospital “very probably” for the rest of his life.

Attorney General Victoria Prentis referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal in February, arguing it was “unduly lenient”.

At a hearing last week, lawyers 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.

However, this was rejected in a ruling on Tuesday from the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis and Mr Justice Garnham at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

In a summary of the Court of Appeal’s decision, Baroness Carr said: “There was no error in the approach adopted by the judge.

“The sentences imposed were not arguably unduly lenient.”

She added: “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 family and friends.

“The victim impact statements paint a graphic picture of the appalling 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.

“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.”

Dr Sanjoy Kumar and Dr Sinead O’Malley, the parents of Ms O’Malley-Kumar, were in court for the ruling.

In a statement afterwards, Mr Webber’s mother Emma said today’s outcome “proves how utterly flawed and under-resourced” the criminal justice system is – and the need for urgent reforms to the UK’s homicide law.

She said: “The fact remains, despite the words of the judge, that almost 90% of people serving hospital orders are out within 10 years and 98% within 20 years. In effect, the families now face their own life sentence of ensuring the monster that is Valdo Calocane becomes the next Ian Brady or Fred West and is never released.

“Given the failed investigation carried out by Nottingham Police, the weak prosecution put forward by East Midlands CPS and the over-reliance on doctors’ reports, there was probably no other conclusion that could be made.”

She said the families’ “fight for justice” would continue, and called for a public inquiry.

“We do not and never will agree that the vicious, calculated and planned attacks carried out were that of an individual who was at zero level of capability,” she said.

“We have never disputed that he is mentally unwell; however, he knew what he was doing, he knew that it was wrong; but he did it anyway. There should be an element of punishment for such a heinous act; alongside appropriate treatment.”

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

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

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

Read more from Sky News:
Doctor diagnosed with incurable cancer free of disease
Nudity and swearing: Dublin-New York livestream shut down

The victims’ families have consistently criticised Calocane’s sentence, with Mrs Webber saying in January that “true justice has not been served”, while Mr Coates’ son James said the killer had “got away with murder”.

At the hearing in London last Wednesday, Deanna Heer KC, representing the Attorney General’s Office, said Calocane’s “extreme” crimes warranted “the imposition of a sentence with a penal element, an element of punishment”.

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

The judges at the Court of Appeal could not examine or change the offences for which Calocane was sentenced and could not look at any new evidence related to the case.

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

An early release prison scheme, used to free up space in jails across England and Wales, is causing “high-risk” offenders to be let out, some of whom are a “risk to children”, according to a new report.

The examination of HMP Lewes, by the chief inspector of prisons, found that “safe risk management” is being undermined.

The findings, published on Tuesday, were part of a wide-ranging inspection at the East Sussex prison in February, but some similar problems were highlighted in a parallel report into Chelmsford prison published last week.

The government says that those guilty of serious crimes, such as terrorism or sexual offences, plus those serving sentences of more than four years, are not eligible for early release.

But this inspection at Lewes found an example of a prisoner who had their release date brought forward under the early release scheme despite deeming him a “risk to children” and “having a history of stalking, domestic abuse, and being subject to a restraining order”.

Another example cited a “high-risk prisoner with significant class A drug misuse issues” being released without a home.

“This release took place despite appeals for the decision to be reversed and staff having serious concerns for his and the public’s safety,” it said.

The report makes clear that the inspection was done only months into the scheme launching in October, and hopes the “serious concerns” they raised about its implementation were “teething troubles”.

However, these findings follow Sky News exposing widespread concern among the probation service about the early release measure, which has been regularly revised and updated since it was launched in October.

Labour is calling for the government to be more transparent about the parameters of the scheme.

“The public will rightly be worried to hear of cases where violent prisoners are being released without a proper assessment of the risk they pose to the public, and specifically children,” said the shadow justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood.

“It’s being left to prison inspectors to tell the public the truth because this government is refusing to level with them on the scale of the prisons and probation crisis,” she said.

Prisons across England and Wales are under pressure, and severely overcrowded.

Figures published on Friday showed 87,691 people are currently behind bars in England and Wales.

The number of people that can be held in “safe and decent accommodation” in prison, known as the “certified normal accommodation” or “uncrowded capacity”, is considered by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to be 79,507.

That means the current overall system is at 110% capacity, or overcrowded.

Read more:
King Charles discusses cancer treatment side effects
Health secretary unable to guarantee no more maternity scandals
Rwanda law disapplied by NI court

Responding to the inspectorate report, the chief executive of the Howard League, Andrea Coomber, said: “This is the latest in a seemingly never-ending line of inspection reports revealing major problems in a prison system that has been asked to do too much, with too little, for too long.”

“While action to ease pressure on jails is necessary, this temporary measure is no substitute for what is really needed: a more sensible response to crime that puts fewer people behind bars and more money into services that can help them,” she said.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

As of 23 May, eligible male prisoners across 84 prisons in England and Wales can be freed up to 70 days before the end of their sentence. This has been extended from the original 18 days as overcrowding pressures in prisons continue.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “While we will always ensure there is enough capacity to keep dangerous offenders behind bars, this scheme allows us to ease short-term pressures on prisons by moving some lower-level offenders at the end of their custodial term on to licence.

“These offenders will continue to be supervised under strict conditions such as tagging and curfews, and the prison service can block the earlier release of any individual who poses a heightened risk.”

MPs arrested on suspicion of a serious offence face being barred from parliament under new plans approved in a vote on Monday night.

It comes despite the government putting forward a motion that recommended MPs only face a ban if they are charged with a violent or sexual offence – a higher bar.

On Monday night, MPs voted to reverse government moves to water down the measures on “risk-based exclusions” to ensure members can be excluded from parliament at the point of arrest for serious sexual or violent offences, in line with the original recommendation from the House of Commons Commission.

The commission’s initial proposal was later revised by the government to raise the threshold for a potential ban to the point of charge.

But in a surprise move, MPs voted 170 to 169, a majority of one, in favour of an amendment by Lib Dem MP Wendy Chamberlain and Labour MP Jess Phillips to reinstate the original intention of the policy.

MPs were given a free vote on the matter, meaning they were not forced to vote along party lines.

Politics latest: Court ruling ‘blows PM’s claims about Rwanda plan out of the water’

The division list showed eight Conservative MPs voted in favour of the opposition amendment, including safeguarding minister Laura Farris, former prime minister Theresa May and backbench MP Theresa Villiers.

Ms Villiers was herself recommended for a suspension from the Commons for one day in 2021 after she and several other Conservative MPs breached the code of conduct by trying to influence a judge in the trial of former MP Charlie Elphicke, who was convicted in 2020 of sexually assaulting two women and jailed for two years.

The result means those who have been arrested on suspicion of a violent or sexual offence will be banned from parliament, pending the approval of an independent panel.

Mike Clancy, the general secretary of the Prospect trade union, said the outcome was an “important and overdue victory for common-sense and those working on the parliamentary estate”, while FDA general secretary Dave Penman added: “Parliament is a workplace for thousands and these new formal procedures give staff the safe working environment they deserve and would expect in any other workplace.”

Ms Phillips, who advocated for the case for exclusion at the point of arrest, wrote on X: “Shit! We won the vote by one.”

In the debate preceding the vote, she told the Commons: “Today, just on this one day, I have spoken to two women who were raped by members of this parliament; that’s a fairly standard day for me.

“Exclusion at the point of charge sends a clear message to victims that not only will we not investigate unless a victim goes to the police but we won’t act unless they’re charged, which happens in less than 1% of cases. ‘So what’s the point?’ was essentially what this victim said to me.”

No hiding place for suspected Commons sex pests

Jon Craig

Chief political correspondent

@joncraig

In a dramatic knife-edge vote, MPs have voted that there should be no hiding place for suspected Commons sex pests.

Former prime minister Theresa May led a small group of eight Conservatives voting with Opposition MPs to defy the Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt.

To the fury of many Opposition MPs, Ms Mordaunt wanted MPs accused of serious sex or violent offences to be barred from parliament only when they’re charged.

It was officially a free vote. But the vast bulk of MPs voting to delay a ban until a charge were Conservatives, including several Cabinet ministers.

That was brave, so close to a general election. Surely those MPs who voted against a ban upon arrest will be attacked by their political opponents at the election for being soft on suspected sex pests?

The timing of the vote was perhaps unfortunate, coming amid renewed controversy earlier this week over sex pest Charlie Elphicke, the former Conservative MP who was jailed for sex offences.

At the weekend his ex-wife Natalie, who defected from the Conservatives to Labour last week, was accused of lobbying a former justice secretary, Sir Robert Buckland, on his behalf, an allegation she dismissed as “nonsense”.

And despite missing the weekly meeting of the parliamentary Labour Party earlier, Ms Elphicke duly voted with her new colleagues for a ban which would have almost certainly penalised her ex-husband had it been in force.

After the vote, leading supporters of the arrest ban were jubilant and stunned by the closeness of the vote. “Incredible!” Labour’s Stella Creasy told Sky News. Mr Rees-Mogg, however, condemned the proposal as a “power grab”.

It’s a historic vote. It doesn’t matter how close it was. Accusers will argue they’re now better protected. And MPs who supported the tougher ban argue that it brings the Commons into line with other workplaces.

Well, up to a point. MPs still have many perks and privileges that other employers and employees don’t. And Parliament still has a long way to go before its working practices and grievance procedures are brought fully up to date.

The exclusion policy was put forward following a number of incidents involving MPs in recent years and concerns about the safety of those working in parliament.

Currently, party whips decide if and when an MP accused of an offence should be prevented from attending the parliamentary estate.

Under the new plans, a risk assessment will take place when the Clerk of the House is informed by the police that an MP has been arrested on suspicion of committing a violent or sexual offence.

The risk assessment will be carried out by a risk assessment panel, appointed by Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle.

Commons leader Penny Mordaunt cited the “large” number of “vexatious” claims lodged against colleagues as a reason to require a member to be charged before exclusion.

Read more:
Ministers abandon plans to ‘criminalise’ homelessness following backlash
Health secretary unable to guarantee no further maternity care scandals following birth trauma report

Former minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg used the debate to describe the exclusion plans as an “extraordinary power grab by standing orders to undermine a fundamental of our constitution”, while Sir Michael Ellis, a former attorney general, said: “A person must not suffer imposition before guilt has been proven.”