the post office sent a because the post office sent a threatening to sue panorama at the time, didn't they?— time, didn't they? yes. to that oint, time, didn't they? yes. to that point. in _ time, didn't they? yes. to that point. in 2015. — time, didn't they? yes. to that point, in 2015, when _ time, didn't they? yes. to that point, in 2015, when panorama time, didn't they? yes. to that - point, in 2015, when panorama was due to come out, lawyers for the post office threatened to sue panorama. mark davis is communications chief was involved in that responses well and pressured bbc managers, escalated the issue up to senior staff. as i said, that didn't cancel the programme itjust elated by several weeks, but it was seen as a priority inside the post office, as e—mails have shown over the course of this inquiry, because that issue of remote access and any challenge to the horizon it system was something that executives were critically concerned about and that's why mark davis's name has come up several times over the last we must, in e—mails it has been mentioned and it is always to do

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, let's listen back _ themselves this time. ok, let's listen back to _ themselves this time. ok, let's listen back to mark _ themselves this time. ok, let's listen back to mark davies - themselves this time. ok, let's listen back to mark davies who | themselves this time. ok, let's 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 o'malley kumar. and ian coates, and the attempted murder of three others in a spate of attacks in nottingham injune last year. let's 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 o'clock in the morning, he attacked and killed barnaby webber and grace o'malley—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 offender's 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 offender's 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 offender's culpability was not extinguished. and that he had to consider whether a penal element was necessary. because the offender's level of retained responsibility was low and

in circumstances where the offending would not have taken place but for the offender's 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 offender's 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 ain't 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 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 offender's 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. let's 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. that's right. they say they have the utmost — it. that's right. they say they have the utmost sympathy _ it. that's right. they say they have the utmost sympathy with - it. that's right. they say they have the utmost sympathy with the - the utmost sympathy with the families of the victims, in what they describe as a case involving extreme violence. and they have said that it extreme violence. and they have said thatitis extreme violence. and they have said that it is very unlikely that valdo calocane will ever be considered suitable for release from the secure hospital where he is currently being held. and indeed, from where he appeared in the court via video link just now. appeared in the court via video link “ust now. , �* , appeared in the court via video link “ust now. , ~ , , just now. yes. and “ust remind us if --eole just now. yes. and “ust remind us if people _ just now. yes. and “ust remind us if people just — just now. yes. and just remind us if people are just joining _ just now. yes. and just remind us if people are just joining to _ just now. yes. and just remind us if people are just joining to the - people are justjoining to the background of these killings last year. background of these killings last ear. , ., ., ., year. yes. valdo calocane was sentenced _ year. yes. valdo calocane was sentenced in _ year. yes. valdo calocane was sentenced in january - year. yes. valdo calocane was sentenced in january after - year. yes. valdo calocane was - sentenced in january after admitting killing 19—year—old student barnaby webber and 47 my coat. in the 65—year—old school caretaker ian coates. —— and grace o'malley—kumar. that took place in nottingham in

june. because he had paranoid schizophrenia, he was given an indefinite hospital order. the crown prosecution order said the decision to accept it on grounds of diminished responsibility was taken after carefully considering psychiatric reports from a number of doctors. and we heard thejudge referring to those psychiatric reports just now. referring to those psychiatric reportsjust now. but referring to those psychiatric reports just now. but speaking on the court steps after the sentencing in front of the families of the other victims, the mother of barnaby webber said that you justice had not been served and she said that the families had been let down —— true justice. she said she accepted valdo calocane has mental health problems, but she believed he should have been tried for murder. fiend but she believed he should have been tried for murder.— but she believed he should have been tried for murder. and we expect some ofthe tried for murder. and we expect some of the families _ tried for murder. and we expect some of the families to _ tried for murder. and we expect some of the families to speak _ tried for murder. and we expect some of the families to speak on _ tried for murder. and we expect some of the families to speak on the - of the families to speak on the steps of the court of appeal in the next few minutes. we will go back to hear what they had to say. but i want to bring in tim hillier, a legal and sentencing expert. thank

you forjoining us on bbc news. can ifirst get your you forjoining us on bbc news. can i first get your reaction to what thejudge, the court i first get your reaction to what the judge, the court of appeal judges have said? mr; the judge, the court of appeal judges have said? my immediate reaction is l _ judges have said? my immediate reaction is i am _ judges have said? my immediate reaction is i am not _ judges have said? my immediate reaction is i am not surprised - judges have said? my immediate reaction is i am not surprised by| reaction is i am not surprised by thejudgment of the reaction is i am not surprised by the judgment of the court of appeal. i think the initial sentencing remarks by mrjustice turner were very carefully drafted. i think he was well aware of the high—profile nature of the case, the horrendous nature of the case, the horrendous nature of the facts. so in making the sentencing remarks initially backin the sentencing remarks initially back injanuary, he was careful to... the eyes and across the tees in thejudgment. so on to... the eyes and across the tees in the judgment. so on the basis thatis in the judgment. so on the basis that is the court of appeal pointed out, in order to succeed, the solicitor general has to show the sentencing was unduly lenient and they said this is a very high threshold and effectively, you have to find the initial sentencing judge made a gross error. and you couldn't

find that in the sentencing remarks, the original sentencing remarks that basically, once the diminished responsibility plea has been accepted by the prosecution, it is a choice, the sentencing guidelines telljudges choice, the sentencing guidelines tell judges what to choice, the sentencing guidelines telljudges what to do in a situation like that and it is a choice between either the hospital order with the choice of a restriction order which is what mr calocane got or the so—called hybrid order, which is basically a life sentence, a prison sentence coupled with a hospital order, whereby the convicted person spends time in hospital. and should they get better, they continue their sentence in prison for the rest of the sentence. so the immediate reaction is that is what i imagined the court of appeal would go for. it’s of appeal would go for. it's interesting _ of appeal would go for. it's interesting the _ of appeal would go for. it's interesting the judges said that you cannot ignore the medical evidence

in this case. medical evidence particularly important in this case. that's right. there were five distinguished consultant psychiatrist and i think there was an initial three consulted —— psychiatrists. some by the defence and the prosecution also instructed and the prosecution also instructed an expert. and those three reports were reviewed by a further psychiatrist and that was then further reviewed by another psychiatrist. so the medical evidence was conclusive there saying that but for calocane's psychotic condition, they were satisfied these offences would not have occurred, which then removes a degree of responsibility. it takes it out of the realm of the murder which in any other situation, these would have been. saying he was led to commit these offences as a result of this

continuing psychotic episode. and it was interesting that one of the points that has been raised is that this attack took planning, the knives were bought and actions were taken. but the medical evidence is saying that this was all still under the psychotic evidence —— episode, it was part of that episode. harper it was part of that episode. how difficult is it — it was part of that episode. how difficult is it for _ it was part of that episode. how difficult is it for a _ it was part of that episode. how difficult is it for a judge when sentencing in such a high—profile case? i sentencing in such a high-profile case? p, .. , case? i mean, ithink it is extremely _ case? i mean, ithink it is extremely difficult. - case? i mean, ithink it is extremely difficult. in - case? i mean, ithink it is. extremely difficult. in some case? i mean, ithink it is- extremely difficult. in some ways, you could argue in some ways, it has been made slightly easier in recent years because there has been much more intervention from the law in the success of criminaljustice acts and we now have and have had for the last getting on nearly 20 years the sentencing guidelines council which sets down guidelines. and indeed, there are guidelines for dealing

with people suffering from mental disorder. so the scope, the judges don't have full discretion. to some extent, their hands are tied and they need to follow guidelines. but yes, it is a real dilemma. i don't think many of us would envy having that choice to make as both the court of appeal mentioned and mr justice turner mentioned, the balancing act was how to best protect the public because the medical evidence was saying calocane was extremely dangerous clearly by evidence of the horrendous nature of the attacks, but continues to be a threat to the public, so we need to protect the public from calocane and we also need to consider punishments, but it is a balance between the two. and both the court of appeal and mrjustice turner in the original trial in nottingham came down on the side of really, we need to focus on protecting the public here.

need to focus on protecting the public here-— need to focus on protecting the public here. need to focus on protecting the ublic here. f ,~ ~ public here. sorry? do you think it was riiht public here. sorry? do you think it was right for _ public here. sorry? do you think it was right for the _ public here. sorry? do you think it was right for the attorney - public here. sorry? do you think it was right for the attorney general| was right for the attorney general to do what they did in this case? it is a tricky one. the criminal justice act 1988 introduce this idea of the references for unduly lenient sentences prior to that —— and prior to that, the sentence was handed down by the court at the trial and that was that. defendants could appeal against the sentence if they thought they were too harsh, but the prosecution and the state was stuck with the sentence. there was then this provision introduced to allow for references where sentences were thought to be unduly lenient. and in the parliamentary debates at the time back in 1988, they thought there might be one, two and maybe three references each year. and in fact, there have been far more and the number of references have increased. and there is a certain political dimension to it. the politicians are keen if there is a

public and any member of the public can sort of lobby the attorney general and solicitor general to say that this sentence is unduly lenient. so they have got to consider that and again, it is another balancing act of saying, let's have another look at this. i don't want to trivialise matters, but it is a bit like the video assistant referee. you send it back to say, let's have another look at this. is the sentence really right? and in this case, i don't know. we will hear from the relatives of the victims and i suspect they will still be feeling they have been denied justice by the system. but it is difficult taking a step back to see what else in a situation like this could be done.— see what else in a situation like this could be done. yes, it is very hard for the _ this could be done. yes, it is very hard for the families _ this could be done. yes, it is very hard for the families at _ this could be done. yes, it is very hard for the families at this - this could be done. yes, it is very hard for the families at this time, isn't it? ~ ,,., , hard for the families at this time, isn'tit? ~ , , , ., isn't it? absolutely, yes. your heart goes — isn't it? absolutely, yes. your heart goes out _ isn't it? absolutely, yes. your heart goes out to _ isn't it? absolutely, yes. your heart goes out to them - isn't it? absolutely, yes. your. heart goes out to them because isn't it? absolutely, yes. your- heart goes out to them because it

reopens it all. and clearly in some of the interviews i have seen with some of them, the attorney general�*s reference produced a glimmer of hope that they have been clinging to. so i suspect they will be extremely disappointed at the reaction in the court of appeal. but as i said, looking at it both in terms of the sentencing remarks and decision today, it does not come as a complete surprise from a legal point of view. , p, , of view. yes, and the 'udges mentioning * of view. yes, and the 'udges mentioning that h of view. yes, and the 'udges mentioning that it _ of view. yes, and the judges mentioning that it must - of view. yes, and the judges| mentioning that it must have of view. yes, and the judges - mentioning that it must have caused unimaginable grief to the families. so they took that on board. as part of their sentencing remarks. yes. of their sentencing remarks. yes, absolutely- _ of their sentencing remarks. yes, absolutely. the _ of their sentencing remarks. yes, absolutely. the sentencing - of their sentencing remarks. is: absolutely. the sentencing remarks make that very clear and explain and that a list of those affected and details of the impact these offences have had. —— and there is a list. not only direct victims, but everyone else affected by it.

indeed, severely traumatised by the set of circumstances. but in terms of what the criminal justice system is to punish offenders for actions for actions for which they are culpable. the difficulty, the wider difficulty forces society is, what do you do with situations where calocane up until he became ill in 2018 and 2019, he had led a perfectly normal, respectable life. he then becomes seriously ill and these are the sort of consequences of that illness. but as a society, what do you do with someone in that situation? the practical issues seem to be everyone seems to be pretty much agreed on this, he will spend the rest of his life in a secure

sort of accommodation, a secure hospital. he is currently in ash with secure hospital. he is likely to remain there. the prognosis is that the medical evidence doesn't seem to suggest he will get better, so he remains locked up. if he got the whole life sentence which if he had been convicted of them order two the court of appeal alluded to the fact this was probably a case given the horrendous natures of the attacks where the court would be recommending a whole life tariffs, he would have spent the rest of his life in prison. so he practically remains locked up. but i get the point from the families of the victims that this is not punishment as such. a hospital order, it is specifically mentioned in the mental health act, it is recommended as an alternative to punishment. it is saying someone needs treatment and not punishment. tim

saying someone needs treatment and not punishment-— not punishment. tim hillier, sentencing _ not punishment. tim hillier, sentencing expert, - not punishment. tim hillier, sentencing expert, thank- not punishment. tim hillier, | sentencing expert, thank you not punishment. tim hillier, - sentencing expert, thank you very much for your insight. i appreciate your time on bbc news. and if you arejustjoining us, the breaking news is the sentence of a man who stabbed three people to death in nottingham was not unduly lenient. thejudges have ruled valdo nottingham was not unduly lenient. the judges have ruled valdo calocane killed barnaby webber and grace o'malley—kumar both aged 19 and 65—year—old ian coates injune last year, he was given an indefinite hospital order after prosecutors accepted a plea of man slaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. we the families to speak on the spec —— steps of the court of appeal and we will return that as soon as they do that. you can get more on that story on the bbc news website and the app. the covid inquiry is in northern ireland today, where first minister michelle o'neill is expected to be questioned over a controversial funeral she attended during the pandemic. she was part of the procession

for bobby storey, the former sinn fein chairman who was linked to several major incidents