Nottingham killings: Did the court get it right?

With the tragic killings by Valdo Calocane in Nottingham and the controversial manslaughter verdict did the Court get it right? Surely such a terrible and deliberate act is murder.  

To understand the law, we need to go back into history. The idea that 'mad' people do not know what they are doing when they commit a crime is an idea which goes back to Roman times but was clarified in 1843. 

In an attempt to murder Robet Peel, the Prime Minister, Daniel M’Naghten accidently shot dead his private secretary, Edward Drummond. 

At the Old Bailey it soon became clear that M’Naghten was mentally unwell. Previously he had shown signs of paranoia. In court he said: “The Tories  ..have compelled me to do this. They follow, persecute me wherever I go”.

The prosecution argued that, although suffering from delusions, he was capable of distinguishing right from wrong. Medical experts did not agree. 

After hearing the evidence Chief Justice Tindal told the jury: “I cannot press for a verdict against the prisoner.”  He was found not guilty by reason of insanity. 

He spent the next 21 years in “Bedlam,” before being transferred to the new “Broadmoor” Hospital. 

Just like today many people complained about the 'not guilty' verdict including Queen Victoria. As a result the law was clarified by the so-called “M’Naghten rules.” Although written in 1843 they still influence the Law in England and Wales, many Commonwealth countries and most US States.  

In simple English they say that to commit a crime someone has to know what he is doing and understand that it is wrong. In Victorian times this meant avoiding the death penalty. 

However, there were still cases where Courts ignored overwhelming medical evidence to declare someone 'of sound mind'. In April 1872 Arthur O’Connor went to Buckingham Palace, climbed the railings and put a pistol to the Queen’s head before being arrested. 

He had already seen three doctors who found him to be 'clearly of unsound mind' He had also written to the Queen suggesting he should be appointed poet laureate to succeed Tennyson. When assessed he described night visions of angels hurling men down precipices because they had not given up everything to sell Bibles. After three years he was transferred to Hanwell Asylum.

The M’Naghten rules still apply today. In Nottingham the court had to decide whether Calocane knew what he was doing and whether he understood it was wrong. Several expert psychiatrists had all diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia. 

Although manslaughter sounds as though he 'got away with murder' the reality is that a murder conviction would have been less tough. When convicted of murder the judge gives a tariff, the length of time he must remain in prison. If Calocane had been sent to prison there would have been a serious risk to other prisoners and staff. On release he would be supervised by a probation officer not trained to spot the signs of deterioration of a serious mental health condition.  

When convicted of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility and sentenced under the Mental Health Act there is no tariff. Unlike a prison sentence he could only be released under the direct order of the Justice Secretary. He was sentenced to be kept in a secure mental hospital under the Mental Health Act indefinitely. The Judge commented that he would probably stay there for the rest of his life.   

There were many problems with the management of this tragic case. There seems to have been a failure of the mental health services to follow him up and by the Police for not having detained him earlier. But before we try to find a scapegoat were these professionals unable to provide the service because they were under too much pressure from cuts? We also need to ask why the families were not kept informed. 

The final verdict means he is unlikely to ever be released. That must be the right decision.