With how the post office can respond with how the post office can respond with any issue to do with the Horizon It System publicly as well as in his communications with the victims themselves. I assume as has been the case with other people who have given evidence, the families and relatives and some of those passed postmasters mistresses are there today . Postmasters mistresses are there toda . ,. ,. , today . Yes, one person who is here and who tends today . Yes, one person who is here and who tends to today . Yes, one person who is here and who tends to be today . Yes, one person who is here and who tends to be here today . Yes, one person who is here and who tends to be here every today . Yes, one person who is here and who tends to be here every day| and who tends to be here every day is jo and who tends to be here every day isjo hamilton. Many people will remember herfrom the isjo hamilton. Many people will remember her from the itv drama isjo hamilton. Many people will remember herfrom the itv drama mr bates versus the post office. Her story featured prominently. She is someone like many of these other victims who kept saying that she thinks the shortfalls in her account, the problem is that she was having, must have something to do with the Horizon It System. And yet as the inquiry has heard time and time again, so many of these victims were told, you are the only one who is having this problem, so it must be that you are having this problem, not the system itself. Again, this is what the inquiry has been trying to understand. How the post office treated victims who had to deal with very severe consequences, wrongful prosecution is convictions, many went bankrupt and lost their homes. There were Severe Mental Health impacts on them as well. We have heard several suicides were linked to the scandal. So, they want to turn up, they want to look at these executives. Several have told me that after years of feeling so much shame, of being shunned by their communities, of being called liars and thieves, they want to look at these executives as they are at the witness seat answering these questions and under pressure themselves this time. {lila questions and under pressure themselves this time. Ok, lets listen back themselves this time. Ok, lets listen back to themselves this time. Ok, lets listen back to mark themselves this time. Ok, lets listen back to mark davies themselves this time. Ok, lets listen back to mark davies who | themselves this time. Ok, lets i listen back to mark davies who is giving evidence at the moment. Everybody at the post office when we read that e mail was deeply, deeply shocked and the number a number of conversations took place outside of conversations took place outside of e mail about it. The natural Human Instinct of every person who heard about that story was to be deeply, deeply shocked. In terms of Specialist Media lawyer, my role within the post office was to be the Communications Director and there was a very strong likelihood of Communications Media coverage in relations to the spread in relations to the spread in relation to this tragic case. And i was very conscious of the media guidelines around reporting of suicide or is it appeared in this case attempted suicide. And i wanted to make sure we had somebody on hand who could give guidance about those matters. ,. ,. ,. , matters. There was a lining up of a secialist matters. There was a lining up of a Specialist Media matters. There was a lining up of a Specialist Media lawyer. Matters. There was a lining up of a Specialist Media lawyer. Gets matters. There was a lining up of a l Specialist Media lawyer. Gets the inuui at Specialist Media lawyer. Gets the inquiry at the Specialist Media lawyer. Gets the inquiry at the post Specialist Media lawyer. Gets the inquiry at the post office Specialist Media lawyer. Gets the inquiry at the post office and Specialist Media lawyer. Gets the inquiry at the post office and you l inquiry at the post office and you can continue watching that on bbc iplayer. Very shortly, we want to take you to the Court Of Appeal, as three seniorjudges are about to rule on whether the sentence of Triple Killer a Triple Killer is unduly limited. He was sentenced to an indefinite Hospital Order in january after admitting the manslaughter of diminished responsibility. Barnaby webber. Grace omalley kumar. And ian coates, and the Attempted Murder of three others in a spate of attacks in Nottingham Injune last year. Lets cross now to the Court Of Appeal. And we will have the judges in the court. The Criminal Court against Valdo Calocane. Please answer yes or raise your thumb. Calocane. Please answer yes or raise yourthumb. Can calocane. Please answer yes or raise your thumb. Can you calocane. Please answer yes or raise yourthumb. Can you hear us . Mr calocane . Your thumb. Can you hear us . Mr gimme . Your thumb. Can you hear us . Mr calocane . � ,. , ~ ,. , ~ calocane . Are the speakers working mr mcalocane . Calocane . Are the speakers working mr mcalocane . Could calocane . Are the speakers working mr mcalocane . Could you calocane . Are the speakers working mr mcalocane . Could you please. Calocane . Are the speakers working i mr mcalocane . Could you please raise your hand . Mr mcalocane . Could you please raise your hand . Mr mcalocane . Could you please raise your hand . Mr mr mcalocane . Could you please raise your hand . Mr calocane mr mcalocane . Could you please raise your hand . Mr calocane can mr mcalocane . Could you please raise your hand . Mr calocane can you i your hand . Mr calocane can you hear your hand . Mr calocane can you hear is . Your hand . Mr calocane can you hear is . Is your hand . Mr calocane can you hear is . Is there your hand . Mr calocane can you hear is . Is there an your hand . Mr calocane can you hear is . Is there an officer your hand . Mr calocane can you hear is . Is there an officer in your hand . Mr calocane can you hear is . Is there an officer in the l hear is . Is there an officer in the room hear is . Is there an officer in the room with hear is . Is there an officer in the room with mr hear is . Is there an officer in the room with mr calocane . Hear is . Is there an officer in the room with mr calocane . So hear is . Is there an officer in the room with mr calocane . Hear is . Is there an officer in the room with mr calocane . So the sound will come and room with mr calocane . So the sound will come and go room with mr calocane . So the sound will come and go from room with mr calocane . So the sound will come and go from the room with mr calocane . So the sound will come and go from the court room with mr calocane . So the sound will come and go from the court of. Will come and go from the Court Of Appeal. At the moment, just checking that mr calocane can hear what is going on in the court. He is of course not there and this is a video link. The three seniorjudges are sitting. You will remember mr calocane was sentenced injanuary. I think the sound is back and they have established mr calocane can hear what is going on in the court. Thank you. We are handing down our judgment in writing, the written judgment in writing, the written judgment is accompanied by a written press summary. Both documents will be available at the end of this hearing. We will now deliver, thank you, a short oral summary of the reasons for and our decision. The oral summary does not form part of ourjudgment, nor is it in substitution for it. This reference by the Solicitor General concerns the sentence imposed on the offender Valdo Calocane on the 24th Of January 2024 at Nottingham Crown court for three counts of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility and three counts of Attempted Murder, to which offences the offender earlier pleaded guilty. Thejudge, mrJustice Turner, sentenced the offender to a hospital and restrictions order pursuant to sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health act 1983, for each offence, to run concurrently. The Solicitor General sought leave to refer the sentences to the Court Of Appeal on the basis that they were unduly lenient. The factual background. On the night of the 12th ofjune, and into the early hours of the 13th of june 2023, Valdo Calocane went out on the streets of nottingham having armed himself with knives. Shortly before four oclock in the morning, he attacked and killed Barnaby Webber and Grace Omalley Kumar, two Young Students walking home after a night out. Just over an hour later, he attacked a School Caretaker ian coates, who was on his way to work, killed him and stole his van. The offender then drove to the city centre, where he deliberately drove the van at speed into another man, wayne birkett, causing him serious brain injury. Minutes later, he deliberately drove into two of the victims. Sharon miller, also causing serious injury. These were random attacks. None of his six victims were known to the offender. The offences understandably caused shock and concern throughout the country and concern throughout the country and beyond. And unimaginable grief to the families of victims and their friends. The offender is now 32 years old. He does not appear to have had Mental Health problems until 2019, and he had no previous convictions. The psychiatric experts agreed that the offender was suffering from treatment resistant paranoid schizophrenia. His symptoms included Persecutory Delusions read beliefs, hallucinations, Thought Alienation and disturbed behaviour. The experts agreed that had he not been experiencing symptoms of acute psychosis, he would not have perpetrated the acts. He was entirely driven by the psychotic process. All the medical experts agreed that a Hospital Order with restrictions was appropriate. And that a Life Sentence of imprisonment with a hospital and limitation order under section 45 a of the Mental Health act 1983, known as a hybrid order, would not provide the public with the same level of Public Protection. The issue and the argument. The sole question for us was whether the sentences imposed are unduly lenient. This is a high hurdle. The Court Must Ask whether the sentences fell outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. Whether, relevant factors, could reasonably considerappropriate. Whether, in consider appropriate. Whether, in other words, considerappropriate. Whether, in other words, thejudge below has fallen into gross error. The Solicitor General argues that the judge failed to reflect sufficiently the multiple aggravating features of the multiple aggravating features of the offending when arriving at an appropriate minimum term of imprisonment under a Life Sentence. Secondly, that Thejudge Imprisonment under a Life Sentence. Secondly, that the judge failed to take sufficient account first of evidence to the effect that the offenders culpability was not extinguished by his mental illness. And second, the extent of the harm caused. And thirdly, that thejudge was wrong not to include a penal element in the sentence. It was submitted that the overall seriousness of the case required in position of a hybrid order. Our analysis. It is accepted by the Solicitor General that the judge made no error of principle in his approach and that his choice was stark and binary. Either hybrid orders or hospital and restrictions orders. The Solicitor General contends that the offenders criminality was aggravated by multiple features, including planning and the purchase of knives. However, psychiatric evidence established that these actions were part of one psychotic episode of intense severity. The judge recognised that the offenders culpability was not extinguished. And that he had to consider whether a penal element was necessary. Because the offenders level of retained responsibility was low and in circumstances where the offending would not have taken place but for the offenders schizophrenia, the judge was entitled to conclude that a penal element was unnecessary. This was so despite the number of victims, and despite the extent of the harm caused. The schizophrenia was the sole identified because of these crimes. So for example, there was no evidence of substance abuse. No evidence of any culpable failure to take medication. Or any motive for attacking these victims. The key factor in a case like this when deciding whether or not a penal element is required is the strength of the link between the offenders impairment and the offending in question. Here, at the time of the assaults, the offender was in the grip of a severe psychotic episode. Thejudge properly took grip of a severe psychotic episode. The judge properly took into account the different regimes that would apply, depending on which of the two possible sentences was imposed. His conclusion, that Hospital Orders with restrictions were appropriate, was consistent with the principle that the graver the offence and the greater the risk to the public, the greater the risk to the public, the greater the risk to the public, the greater the emphasis that should be placed on the protection of the public. He reached the reasonable conclusion based on the psychiatric evidence before him that the aim of Public Protection would better be served by hospital, with restrictions orders. In any event, the extreme violence perpetrated by the extreme violence perpetrated by the offender makes it very likely that whichever of the two options had been adopted, the offender will spend the rest of his life in a secure hospital. Our conclusion. There was no error in the approach adopted by thejudge. The 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 families and theirfriends. The terrible attacks. And their families and their friends. The victim terrible attacks. And their families and theirfriends. The victim impact statements aint a graphic picture of the appalling effects of the offenders 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 Thejudge Imprisonment. But neither the judge nor this imprisonment. But neither thejudge nor this court can ignore the medical evidence as to the offenders condition, which led to these dreadful events or the threat to Public Safety which the offender continues to pose. Thank you very much. Studio so there we have Lady Chief Justice baroness car announcing as part of one of the three senior judges that the sentence handed down to Valdo Calocane who stabbed three people to death in nottingham last year, that no error was adopted by thejudge and the year, that no error was adopted by the judge and the sentence was not unduly lenient. So they say leave to appeal has been refused. They say the judge in the case reached the reasonable conclusion with the psychological evidence in front of him and that mr calocane at the time was having a psychotic episode, in the grip of a psychotic episode at the grip of a psychotic episode at the time that he carried out the crimes and that the judge in the case and they looking at it cannot ignore the medical evidence, and the judge had reached the reasonable conclusion in front of him that looking at whether it was unduly lenient was the sole question they looked at and that it was a high hurdle. Lets bring in my colleague who has been listening to that, ben is in the newsroom. So Thejudges Have decided that the sentence was not unduly lenient and therefore, Valdo Calocane cannot appeal against it. � , Valdo Calocane cannot appeal against it. , Valdo Calocane cannot appeal against it. Thats right. They say they have the utmost it. Thats right. They say they have the utmost sympathy it. Thats right. They say they have the utmost sympathy with it. Thats right. They say they have the utmost sympathy with the the utmost sympathy with the families of the vi