Psychiatrist ‘unable to section Nottingham killer’
Psychiatrist ‘unable to section Nottingham killer’
Psychiatrist unable to section Nottingham killer – Dr. Mike Skelton, a consultant psychiatrist, concluded that Valdo Calocane could not be held under the Mental Health Act following an incident in which he attacked a flatmate. This decision, made in January 2022, came just months before Calocane carried out fatal assaults on three individuals on June 13, 2023. The psychiatrist’s assessment, which deemed Calocane a low risk at the time, has since been scrutinized in a public inquiry. The incident in question involved Calocane placing a flatmate in a headlock and taking him hostage in their Nottingham flat, an event that sparked the need for a reassessment of his mental state.
Calocane, who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 2020, had previously been admitted under the Mental Health Act twice in August of that year. During those periods, he was monitored at Highbury Hospital, where he received treatment for his condition. In September 2021, Skelton conducted a seclusion review after Calocane assaulted a police officer. At that time, the psychiatrist noted Calocane’s “guarded, curt, fixed staring and hostile edge” behavior, yet still felt safe enough to assess him from a distance, avoiding eye contact due to safety concerns.
When Calocane’s flatmate confrontation occurred in January 2022, Skelton assessed him again and described the individual as “polite and calm,” even inviting the team into his home. Despite this, police had to use a warrant to enter the property and conduct the evaluation, deploying 15 officers for the process. The decision to release Calocane was based on the psychiatrist’s belief that the criteria for detention under the Mental Health Act were not met. “We all agreed that this chap would be better off in hospital,” Skelton stated, but noted that legal powers were lacking at the time.
“He was able to, and it’s very unusual, to push back and you could tell he wished to take control.”
The psychiatrist acknowledged that Calocane had not been taking his medication during the assessment. “It’s clear that he does make statements and then when he’s challenged or we have evidence, that sort of melts away,” Skelton explained. He emphasized that the absence of medication was not unusual among patients with schizophrenia and that the key factor in detention decisions was the “net effect” on the individual’s behavior, not just the lack of prescribed drugs.
During the assessment, Calocane took one tablet in front of Skelton, but the psychiatrist argued that a single dose did not mitigate the risk. “The first step was to see was he going to even do that, because if he didn’t, he would have been detained immediately,” he said. This observation highlights the subjective nature of mental health evaluations, where the presence or absence of acute symptoms can significantly influence outcomes. Skelton also mentioned that the incident still under investigation and Calocane’s “composure” played a role in his decision-making process.
Following the January 2022 assessment, Calocane was returned to his accommodation under the supervision of the crisis team. This arrangement required daily monitoring as part of a community plan, with the team gathering further evidence to determine if another detention was necessary. Eight days later, a second Mental Health Act assessment was ordered, leading to the events of June 13, 2023. The inquiry heard that the crisis team had been aware of Calocane’s potential for violence, yet opted for continued outpatient care.
Skelton defended his decision, stating that the assessment process was not influenced by Calocane trying to “dissuade” him from sectioning him. “That wasn’t comfortable for us. To suggest that we were not aware of the risk, it’s not true,” he told the inquiry. The psychiatrist emphasized the importance of meeting specific criteria outlined in the Mental Health Act, which focuses on the individual’s current mental state and risk level. “An MHA assessment is based on ‘are the criteria met?’ and there are not individual elements,” he clarified, underscoring the structured approach required for detention.
Josephine Baker, a crisis care practitioner nurse and team leader from February 2022, also provided evidence during the inquiry. She had visited Calocane between his two admissions to Highbury Hospital in June 2020, noting his behavior before the first section. This interaction, combined with the subsequent incidents, formed part of the team’s understanding of Calocane’s condition. The inquiry further revealed that the university had removed the other tenants from his property for safety reasons after he was not detained.
Calocane’s actions in June 2023 led to the deaths of Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar, and Ian Coates, with three others injured. The public inquiry has since focused on the gaps in the Mental Health Act’s application, particularly how the assessment process can overlook potential risks. Skelton’s evaluation, which occurred just weeks before the attacks, has raised questions about the adequacy of outpatient care for individuals with a history of psychotic episodes and violent tendencies.
While Skelton maintained that his decision was grounded in clinical evidence, critics argue that the criteria for detention may not fully account for unpredictable behavior. The case highlights the challenges faced by mental health professionals in balancing the need for intervention with the legal framework governing their actions. Calocane’s ability to appear composed and cooperative during the January 2022 assessment, despite a history of aggression, underscores the complexity of psychiatric evaluations in real-world scenarios.
As the inquiry continues, the focus remains on whether the Mental Health Act’s provisions were sufficient to prevent the tragic outcome. Skelton’s testimony, along with Baker’s contributions, provides a detailed account of the decisions made and the rationale behind them. However, the incident has sparked a broader discussion about the role of community-based mental health support and the need for more stringent risk assessments in cases involving individuals with a history of violence.
The case also raises questions about the coordination between police and mental health services. While officers were present during Calocane’s assessment, medical staff expressed concerns about his behavior, prompting the decision to keep them on-site. This collaboration, though intended to ensure safety, may have been insufficient in addressing the potential for escalation. The inquiry will now examine whether the timeline of events and the documentation of Calocane’s behavior were adequate to justify his release.
In summary, the psychiatric evaluation of Valdo Calocane in January 2022 became a focal point in the aftermath of his June 2023 attacks. Skelton’s assessment, which allowed Calocane to return home, has been scrutinized for its oversight of key risk factors. The case serves as a reminder of the critical role mental health professionals play in determining an individual’s capacity for harm, as well as the limitations of the legal framework in which they operate.