The family of a woman killed in a sustained assault has voiced deep frustration and grief after legal proceedings resulted in a hospital order rather than a custodial sentence for the perpetrator. The case has raised questions about how mental illness and criminal responsibility intersect within the justice system.

Kennedi Tape died following an extended attack, during which her attacker used her fingerprint to unlock her phone and impersonate her in messages to friends. After the assault, the attacker removed her Fitbit watch, left her body in the car, purchased cigarettes, and met with a friend before police detained him. Upon arrest, he exercised his right to remain silent during questioning.

Initially, prosecutors indicated that Tape would be charged with murder. However, months after the incident, authorities informed the victim’s family that new psychiatric evaluations had altered the case’s trajectory. Two psychiatrists concluded the attacker was experiencing a psychotic episode at the time of the assault, linked to undiagnosed schizophrenia, with cannabis use identified as a coping mechanism rather than the cause of the psychosis. On that basis, prosecutors agreed to accept a plea of manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility.

Kennedi’s mother, Linda, who had lived with the accused prior to the incident, strongly disputed the diagnosis. She described him as exhibiting controlling behavior but showed no previous signs of psychosis. Linda expressed dismay at the absence of consultation and noted the plea agreement was communicated to the family without discussion, leaving them devastated.

Initially, the family was told that a hybrid order—combining hospital treatment with a prison sentence—was under consideration. However, just hours before the sentencing hearing in December 2024, they were informed that a hospital order would be sought instead, meaning the accused would be detained indefinitely without a fixed prison term. Linda described this as the attacker “getting away with murder.”

The sentencing hearing, which lasted two days, did not include challenges to the psychiatric evidence or decisions made by prosecutors, further fueling the family's dissatisfaction. Advocates for the family criticized the absence of rigorous scrutiny during sentencing, characterizing the psychiatrists as effectively fulfilling the roles of judge, jury, and probation service all at once.

Linda highlighted a broader concern regarding a lack of transparency throughout the process. She noted that significant decisions were repeatedly communicated as faits accomplis, limiting the family’s ability to contest them. Rights related to the accused’s parental role were addressed subsequently in family court, where Linda successfully gained full custody and severed his legal parental rights.

Yet the family’s ordeal continues. Earlier in 2026, Linda received notice that clinicians were considering escorted leave for the offender—a prospect she described as terrifying given the potential for encounters with him in the community. She emphasized that despite the criminal proceedings being complete in a legal sense, the emotional toll and uncertainty persist.

Linda intends to raise these concerns with David Lammy, noting that her daughter and granddaughter deserve justice and security. “I won’t stop until that happens,” she said, underscoring the ongoing struggle faced by families caught at the crossroads of mental health and criminal justice.