The recent Conservative pledge to reform homicide laws have been billed as the biggest change to this area since the Homicide Act 1957. As well as increasing minimum sentences for domestic killings, these reforms would reorganise murder into first- and second-degree tiers.
The Times announcement of these proposals extensively referenced the sentence received last year by Nottingham killer Valdo Calocane, which sparked outrage amongst many who considered his sentence too lenient.
Calocane—who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia—pleaded guilty to manslaughter instead of murder on the grounds of ‘diminished responsibility’. He received a hospital order instead of a jail sentence.
Amongst emotive quotes from the families of Calocane’s victims, the article referenced an assertion that his crime ‘would have been categorised as murder, albeit second-degree murder’ under the proposals. This quote is taken from an independent report into the CPS’s handling of the case—but this is a misleading conclusion of the report’s overall implications.
No difference in sentencing
Under the proposals, second-degree murder would apply where the accused intended to kill but has a partial defence—including diminished responsibility. The sentence would be decided by the judge.
It seems, then, that this is a mere renaming exercise. Manslaughter, in its current form, can result in a life sentence just as in a hypothetical second-degree murder. And just like in second-degree murder, this is a matter for the judge’s discretion.
Why, then, did Valdo Calocane avoid prison? It was not because his indictment failed to contain the word ‘murder’, but because he was found to be ‘plainly dangerous.’ The extent of his paranoid schizophrenia, corroborated by four psychiatric experts, meant that a hospital order was recommended for public protection.
This was made clear not just in the Court of Appeal judgment, but also in the report from which The Times took its quote. The report’s overall conclusion was to totally support the CPS’s handling of the case, stating that the charging decision was ‘correct’ and that Calocane’s medical conditions undoubtedly made a plea of diminished responsibility appropriate.
Even if he had been charged with second-degree murder, the manifest evidence of Calocane’s mental disorder means a sentence spent entirely behind bars would still likely have been found inappropriate by a judge.
A judge could have imposed a ‘hybrid order’, condemning Calocane to spend part of his sentence in prison. But is unclear whether the proposed reforms will make hybrid orders mandatory.
In short, the only definite difference the tier system would have made was to attach the stigma of the term ‘murder’ to Calocane’s crime.
This relabelling, however, would have its own disastrous consequences.
‘Second-degree murder’ and domestic abuse cases
Diminished responsibility is currently the key defence for women who kill their abusive partners. If successful, it currently allows the charge of murder to be downgraded to manslaughter.
Under the proposals, however, the only downgrade available would be to second-degree murder. This is where the importance of the renaming has evident adverse impact. The accused would be deemed a ‘murderer’ in the eyes of the law, harming her ability to subsequently obtain custody of or access to her children.
This is compounded by another aspect of the Conservative’s proposals: that the minimum sentence for murders inside the home be raised from 15 to 25 years. This measure is intended to toughen sentences for domestic abusers, but could very well ensnare victims of domestic abuse.
A prison system on the verge of collapse
Even if this policy fulfilled its purpose of putting more people behind bars for longer, it would exacerbate a prison system on the verge of collapse.
As prisons in England and Wales near capacity, it is unclear how the Conservatives would reconcile the homicide overhauls with plans like the early release scheme and encouraging suspended sentences.
It is all well and good to say that ‘killers like Calocane would be charged with second degree murder’, but beyond putting more damning labels on existing offences, the latest proposals would have had a limited impact on his sentence.
It is likely that Valdo Calocane—in all practical terms—would still have ‘gotten away with murder.’
The reforms also raise a slew of practical issues around domestic cases and the overcrowding of prisons. Pending further clarification, this latest attempt to bolster the Tories’ tough-on-crime image raises far more questions than it answers.
Conservatives’ new homicide plan would still have let Valdo Calocane ‘get away with murder’
Conservatives’ new homicide plan would still have let Valdo Calocane ‘get away with murder’
The recent Conservative pledge to reform homicide laws have been billed as the biggest change to this area since the Homicide Act 1957. As well as increasing minimum sentences for domestic killings, these reforms would reorganise murder into first- and second-degree tiers.
The Times announcement of these proposals extensively referenced the sentence received last year by Nottingham killer Valdo Calocane, which sparked outrage amongst many who considered his sentence too lenient.
Calocane—who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia—pleaded guilty to manslaughter instead of murder on the grounds of ‘diminished responsibility’. He received a hospital order instead of a jail sentence.
Amongst emotive quotes from the families of Calocane’s victims, the article referenced an assertion that his crime ‘would have been categorised as murder, albeit second-degree murder’ under the proposals. This quote is taken from an independent report into the CPS’s handling of the case—but this is a misleading conclusion of the report’s overall implications.
No difference in sentencing
Under the proposals, second-degree murder would apply where the accused intended to kill but has a partial defence—including diminished responsibility. The sentence would be decided by the judge.
It seems, then, that this is a mere renaming exercise. Manslaughter, in its current form, can result in a life sentence just as in a hypothetical second-degree murder. And just like in second-degree murder, this is a matter for the judge’s discretion.
Why, then, did Valdo Calocane avoid prison? It was not because his indictment failed to contain the word ‘murder’, but because he was found to be ‘plainly dangerous.’ The extent of his paranoid schizophrenia, corroborated by four psychiatric experts, meant that a hospital order was recommended for public protection.
This was made clear not just in the Court of Appeal judgment, but also in the report from which The Times took its quote. The report’s overall conclusion was to totally support the CPS’s handling of the case, stating that the charging decision was ‘correct’ and that Calocane’s medical conditions undoubtedly made a plea of diminished responsibility appropriate.
Even if he had been charged with second-degree murder, the manifest evidence of Calocane’s mental disorder means a sentence spent entirely behind bars would still likely have been found inappropriate by a judge.
A judge could have imposed a ‘hybrid order’, condemning Calocane to spend part of his sentence in prison. But is unclear whether the proposed reforms will make hybrid orders mandatory.
In short, the only definite difference the tier system would have made was to attach the stigma of the term ‘murder’ to Calocane’s crime.
This relabelling, however, would have its own disastrous consequences.
‘Second-degree murder’ and domestic abuse cases
Diminished responsibility is currently the key defence for women who kill their abusive partners. If successful, it currently allows the charge of murder to be downgraded to manslaughter.
Under the proposals, however, the only downgrade available would be to second-degree murder. This is where the importance of the renaming has evident adverse impact. The accused would be deemed a ‘murderer’ in the eyes of the law, harming her ability to subsequently obtain custody of or access to her children.
This is compounded by another aspect of the Conservative’s proposals: that the minimum sentence for murders inside the home be raised from 15 to 25 years. This measure is intended to toughen sentences for domestic abusers, but could very well ensnare victims of domestic abuse.
A prison system on the verge of collapse
Even if this policy fulfilled its purpose of putting more people behind bars for longer, it would exacerbate a prison system on the verge of collapse.
As prisons in England and Wales near capacity, it is unclear how the Conservatives would reconcile the homicide overhauls with plans like the early release scheme and encouraging suspended sentences.
It is all well and good to say that ‘killers like Calocane would be charged with second degree murder’, but beyond putting more damning labels on existing offences, the latest proposals would have had a limited impact on his sentence.
It is likely that Valdo Calocane—in all practical terms—would still have ‘gotten away with murder.’
The reforms also raise a slew of practical issues around domestic cases and the overcrowding of prisons. Pending further clarification, this latest attempt to bolster the Tories’ tough-on-crime image raises far more questions than it answers.
Related Posts