Calocane, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 490 (14 May 2024)

Calocane, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 490 (14 May 2024)

The sentencing judge did not err in principle and was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the offender's responsibility was at the lower end due to acute psychosis, and that a hospital and restrictions order provided the greatest public protection. The sentence was not unduly lenient and fell within the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 490
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Respondent: Valdo Calocane
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (reference by Solicitor General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Diminished Responsibility, Hospital Orders, Hybrid Orders, Protection of the Public, Culpability and Mental Disorder
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Sentencing Diminished Responsibility Hospital Orders Hybrid Orders Protection of the Public Culpability and Mental Disorder

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Valdo Calocane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (reference by Solicitor General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed (hospital and restrictions order under ss.37/41 Mental Health Act 1983) was unduly lenient and whether a hybrid order (life imprisonment with hospital and limitation direction under s.45A) should have been imposed instead.
  2. 2 How to balance the need for punishment with the protection of the public when the offender's culpability is substantially reduced by mental disorder.

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in principle and was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the offender's responsibility was at the lower end due to acute psychosis, and that a hospital and restrictions order provided the greatest public protection. The sentence was not unduly lenient and fell within the range reasonably open to the judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentence upheld

Orders

  • The sentences imposed by the Crown Court (hospital and restrictions order under ss.37/41 Mental Health Act 1983) are affirmed.