[News] Can you really make offenders attend sentencing?

[Thunder Bolt]

There was a Scottish KC who specialises in defence on 5Live this morning and his opinion is that it would be completely unworkable for the reasons I think have already been outlined.

He also said that in his 40 years of work, he hasn't had one defendant who refused to attend sentencing. It clearly happens, as we know from the recent high-profile example, but it does seem to be a relatively rare occurrence.

It is rare and only made public recently because of the high-profile cases.

It is more common in the plea hearings where defendants don't bother turning up at court, so a warrant has to be issued, or refuse to come out of their cells to hear the charges laid against them. That doesn't make the news.

 

[beorhthelm]

someone from a victim group pointed out they used to have defendents attend sentancing. their refusal or obstruction would delay procedings, so it was dropped as unnecessary.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It is rare and only made public recently because of the high-profile cases.

It is more common in the plea hearings where defendants don't bother turning up at court, so a warrant has to be issued, or refuse to come out of their cells to hear the charges laid against them. That doesn't make the news.

If it is so rare then how are the professionals you have been referencing forming their opinions as to the practicalities ?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If it is so rare then how are the professionals you have been referencing forming their opinions as to the practicalities ?

Experience. Rare as in it isn't an everyday occurrence but it does happen.

 

[happypig]

It is rare and only made public recently because of the high-profile cases.

It is more common in the plea hearings where defendants don't bother turning up at court, so a warrant has to be issued, or refuse to come out of their cells to hear the charges laid against them. That doesn't make the news.

If a defendant is on remand the prisons prefer to keep them all together in one area. If they get taken to court for a case management hearing (which can include a review of the refusal to allow bail) their cell effectively becomes vacant and can be given to another remand prisoner. There's a fear amongst remandees that they could, therefore, end up in general population where they would stand out (remandees wear their own clothes). Hence some people choose not to attend.

 

[A1X]

He also said that in his 40 years of work, he hasn't had one defendant who refused to attend sentencing. It clearly happens, as we know from the recent high-profile example, but it does seem to be a relatively rare occurrence.

I wonder whether the high profile nature of the case also has a bearing on the defendant not attending, the media scrum will be a million times higher than it would be for 99.9% of cases. Indeed in some cases it might actually suit the authorities for the defendant not to be taken to the court as they will still have a duty of care to the defendant and you never know whether some nutjob will want to have a pop at a bit of vigilante "justice".

 

[W3D]

More populist nonsense to distract from their multiple areas of non delivery. Absolutely impractical, but good for headlines in right wing pr

No you can't. The manpower required to forcibly pick someone up and drag them into court and then keep them there will be expensive and disproportionate. And what if they decide to scream and shout, kick off, spit, etc how will that be managed? Do we really want to add this burden to the courts and police?

Its cowardly and disgusting but if the person knows they are getting banged up I can see why they would not want to attend. What does forcing them to attend achieve? If they don't want to listen to the bereaved families or similar they'll just put their fingers in their ears and ignore.

Typical gesture policy from a desperate government. Unless you're going to knock people out and carry them in BA Baracus style, the only thing you can do to non-conformists is additionally charge them with Contempt of Court and add an unpayable fine or unservable time to their sentence.

Surely you could put a surcharge on their sentence if they don't attend, and if they're abusive during the process hold them in contempt of court and add another surcharge.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Surely you could put a surcharge on their sentence if they don't attend, and if they're abusive during the process hold them in contempt of court and add another surcharge.

Of course. But the last two to refuse had whole life tariffs

 

[Pevenseagull]

Front page of Mail and Express today.

Mission accomplished.

 

[Acker79]

A little further down that twitter thread is a link to a blogpost. It's interesting and I think worth a read. It was written a while back in response to another incident, but it all still applies, I did think about picking particular bits out, but would have ended up essentially copy and pasting almost all of it.

How do we force cowardly murderers to face up to what they have done?

Something must be done about the problem of convicted criminals refusing to attend court for their sentencing hearings. So both main political parties are agreed. And so, according to polls, is the…

thesecretbarrister.com

 

[Wardy's twin]

How is that going to help victim's families? Defendants have stared at families, sworn at them, and it puts the security guards at risk.
I've seen nonsense about tasering them, adding to their sentence; how is that going to affect someone with multiple whole life sentences?

It has happened for years, so this is just a knee jerk reaction from the Home Office to distract from their dreadful human rights abuses.

I guess if you say life really means life - no remission then great. If life means 20 years then yes, saying they won't ever get out if thy don't appear would be ok IMO but physically forcing them to attend is nonsense.

 

[GT49er]

How is that going to help victim's families? Defendants have stared at families, sworn at them, and it puts the security guards at risk.
I've seen nonsense about tasering them, adding to their sentence; how is that going to affect someone with multiple whole life sentences?

It has happened for years, so this is just a knee jerk reaction from the Home Office to distract from their dreadful human rights abuses.

Actually it's a 'knee jerk' from victims, victims' families, and Labour - which the government has listened to and responded. Looks like for once they might have got something right - or at least something which a large cross section of the populace agrees with, and Tories and Labour.

But hey ho, never mind.

 

[Flagship]

It's very simple.

All that you need to do is make the death sentence mandatory for murderers. However, if they attend court to hear the victims' statements, they can have their sentence commuted to life in jail.

Some mass murderers preferred to die and did it themselves - Fred West and Harold Shipman spring to mind.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Of course. But the last two to refuse had whole life tariffs

This thread has become a bit 'Groundhog day' has it not?
Has anyone questioned the verdict yet?

 

[portlock seagull]

It is rare and only made public recently because of the high-profile cases.

It is more common in the plea hearings where defendants don't bother turning up at court, so a warrant has to be issued, or refuse to come out of their cells to hear the charges laid against them. That doesn't make the news.

I think we’re seeing a new trend perhaps though. Copy cat cowards. Who know by not attending it sticks two fingers up, creates a media storm, inflicts more hurt etc. The typical criminal will soon be doing this. It’s modern life. A million other examples of idiocy and inconsideration exist that have become common place simply because of the internet essentially.

 

[Blue3]

This kind of smacks of grandstanding politics.

Can’t see how you can make people do anything short of putting them in a Hannibal Lector suit.

Criminals to be forced to attend sentencing hearings

It follows a number of high-profile cases where offenders refused to appear, including Lucy Letby.

www.bbc.co.uk

That’s exactly what the Government is doing playing to the base needs of it’s voting public just sound bites,they will be gone next year and maybe we can actually have some grownups running things for a while

 

[Weststander]

[Related to this thread. I couldn’t find another from the time of the cases].

Excellent C4 police doc mini series started this evening on the unrelated Merseyside murders of Olivia Pratt-Korbel and Ashley Dale. Innocents gunned down by drug gang scum. Harrowing but good TV.

Had to have an online peak at later sentencing, to give an early sense of solace.

 

[CheeseRolls]

It is rare and only made public recently because of the high-profile cases.

It is more common in the plea hearings where defendants don't bother turning up at court, so a warrant has to be issued, or refuse to come out of their cells to hear the charges laid against them. That doesn't make the news.

Plea hearings need to move to video conferencing. I know there are a number of blockers to this, but time to start banging heads together including some of the more obstinate judges.

It isn't just the cost of transporting defendants, the number of barristers having to drive for hours to attend a 15 minute hearing just smacks of a complete waste of public money.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Plea hearings need to move to video conferencing. I know there are a number of blockers to this, but time to start banging heads together including some of the more obstinate judges.

It isn't just the cost of transporting defendants, the number of barristers having to drive for hours to attend a 15 minute hearing just smacks of a complete waste of public money.

Part of the problem has been prisoners refusing to leave their cells, so all the effort of setting up video conferencing s wasted. Plus a lot of equipment is old and not been replaced.
Silly little niggles when moving to paperless hearings when court representatives tell counsel, they can’t plug in their laptops, as it’s using ‘their’ electricity, and batteries are not guaranteed to last the day.
Life in the CJS, hopefully improved by now.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Part of the problem has been prisoners refusing to leave their cells, so all the effort of setting up video conferencing s wasted. Plus a lot of equipment is old and not been replaced.
Silly little niggles when moving to paperless hearings when court representatives tell counsel, they can’t plug in their laptops, as it’s using ‘their’ electricity, and batteries are not guaranteed to last the day.
Life in the CJS, hopefully improved by now.

If a detainee refuses to leave their cell, there is even less reason for the hearing to be in person surely.

Maybe instead of labelling judges as the enemy of the people, we could have some grown up government and agreement from both sides how we can effectively speed up the justice system and improve efficiency. It just needs some grown up dialogue and a lot of will power.