Lack of victims' rights in new Bill ‘outrageous', says Barnaby Webber's mother
Discretion of the information will be left to hospital managers and probation services instead, with victims having no legal right to be informed, carry out a consultation or appeal any decisions.
(Left to right) Ian Coates, Barnaby Webber and Grace O'Malley-Kumar were all killed in the Nottingham attacks in 2023 (Nottinghamshire Police/PA)
Valdo Calocane, who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, killed 19-year-old students Barnaby and Grace O'Malley-Kumar and 65-year-old caretaker Ian Coates before attempting to kill three other people, in a spate of attacks in the city in June 2023.
He was sentenced to an indefinite hospital order in January last year after admitting manslaughter by diminished responsibility and attempted murder.
A judge-led public inquiry into the decisions made prior to the attacks was announced in February and is due to take place later this year.
Emma Webber said the Bill would be 'a betrayal of every victim who has already been failed by this system' if it was passed into law in its current form.
'This must not happen. It is utterly outrageous that the Government would even contemplate this,' she said.
'So egregious are the failings by every single agency involved in every aspect of our tragedy that a statutory public inquiry is under way.
'A significant part of the inquiry will focus on the failings of 'hospital managers' and 'clinicians' who failed to do their jobs properly. Resulting in the monster who killed my beautiful child be allowed to roam the streets and hide in plain sight.'
Ms Webber continued: 'Why has the Government chosen to include us as families in the proposals for the mental health bill, revision of our homicide laws and even the 10-year plan but conveniently chosen to ignore us on what is probably the one that will affect us the most?'
Campaigners have called on victims minister Alex Davies-Jones to amend the Bill by guaranteeing all victims have the right to be consulted, receive necessary information and be informed of key decisions, and to create a formal appeal process when information is denied.
Julian Hendy, founder of Hundred Families, said the Bill as it stands was 'not just a loophole, it's a kick in the teeth' for bereaved families and victims.
She said: 'We are talking about offenders who have been convicted of the most serious of crimes, which cause extreme concern amongst the public.
'This is not about punishment. It's about basic fairness, compassion, and transparency. Victims and their families should not be shut out of decisions that affect their personal safety and recovery.
'We have a lamentably long track record in our country of ignoring victims of serious crime. That has to stop. There is a balance to be struck.
'The Government has a clear opportunity to put this right and they must not waste it.'
The Victims and Courts Bill is currently at the report stage in the House of Commons after first being introduced to Parliament in May.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill was passed at third reading by MPs, and will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'. Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens. 'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.' Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. 'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.' Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.' He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.' The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order. It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority. Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them. 'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. 'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. 'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.' The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.' At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good. 'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.' 'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added. The Bill was passed on the nod.
Leader Live
40 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Court reforms vital to tackle ‘scandalous disgrace' of backlog, says Ken Clarke
Given the mounting trial logjam, the Government has 'no choice' but to swiftly accept proposed reforms, which would see less cases heard by juries, according to the Conservative peer. Last week, plans to reduce the number of jury trials and create a new type of crown court where cases are heard by judges were unveiled by Sir Brian Leveson. The review commissioned by the Government seeks to 'reduce the risk of total system collapse' amid a record-high backlog where some cases are listed for 2029. It comes after the crown court backlog in England and Wales passed 75,000 cases for the first time, rising to 76,957 at the end of March. Sir Brian's recommendations are expected to save approximately 9,000 sitting days in the crown court each year from some of the main changes, such as by diverting cases to magistrates' courts or to the proposed Crown Court Bench Division for trials to be heard by judges. Juries would be reserved to hear the most serious cases. Ministers are now considering the recommendations and will respond in the early autumn with a view to legislation. The Government has already accepted a raft of reforms proposed in a separate independent sentencing review by former justice secretary David Gauke to tackle jail overcrowding. Speaking in Parliament, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who also previously served as justice secretary, said: 'Does the minister accept that it is a scandalous disgrace that in this country some victims and people charged with offences have to wait months and sometimes years before a trial can take place? 'Does he therefore agree that, in those circumstances, the Government have no choice but to accept as quickly as possible the excellent recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson, because I hear of no alternatives? 'Will he undertake that they will not take too long reviewing and considering these matters? 'This should proceed as rapidly as possible with the full support of everybody who has the interests of the rule of law and justice in this country at heart.' Welcoming his support, justice minister Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who is also a sitting magistrate, said: 'Data published last month showed the backlog stood at nearly 77,000 cases. That is an increase of 2,300 cases over the previous quarter. 'If we were not to take any action, it is projected that the outstanding caseload would be 100,000 in 2028. Clearly, that is unacceptable, and I absolutely take the point he made.' Leading lawyer and independent crossbencher Lord Pannick said: 'Does the minister agree that, in addressing the very serious problems faced by the criminal justice system, it is important not to romanticise the jury, given that 90% of all criminal trials in this country are heard without a jury and relatively speedily – not as speedily as perhaps they could be, but relatively so – and they are heard effectively and with justice.' Lord Ponsonby said: 'Of course I would agree because, as a magistrate, I was among those who hear 90% of all criminal cases. 'There is no right to a jury trial. However, there is a right to a fair trial. 'For a fair trial, it must be heard in a timely manner. That is where we are failing. 'We need these systemic changes to address that fundamental problem, so that people – both victims and defendants – can get a fair trial in a timely way.'
Leader Live
40 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill was passed at third reading by MPs, and will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'. Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens. 'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.' Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. 'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.' Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.' He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.' The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order. It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority. Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them. 'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. 'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. 'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.' The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.' At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good. 'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.' 'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added. The Bill was passed on the nod.
