Should defendants be forced to attend their own life-changing sentencing?
A new Bill says they should – with the aim of making attendance mandatory, it enforces accountability and gives priority to victims and their families.
What is Being Proposed?
Regardless of the severity of the crime, measures within the Bill have been introduced to ensure defendants attend their sentencing hearings.
One of the measures suggested is allowing prison officers to use necessary and reasonable force on defendants, such as handcuffing.
Additionally, in the case where a defendant refuses to attend, the Bill gives authority to judges to impose consequences, such as up to two additional years of sentencing, or alternative sanctions for those already facing lengthy sentences. These alternative sanctions include confinement or limited prison privileges, such as reduced visitations rights or access to the gym.
Why is this Being Introduced Now?
Although the issue has been discussed for years, recent high-profile cases have given rise to concern and urgency for reform.
Notable examples of these defendants who refused to attend their sentencing, include:
- Lucy Letby, who was convicted of killing seven babies and attempting to murder six others
- Koci Selamaj, who killed primary school teacher, Sabina Nessa, in 2021
- Thomas Cashman, who shot and killed 9-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel in 2022
- Jordan McSweeney, who brutally attacked and killed Zara Aleena in 2022
Victims’ families in these and many other cases have been campaigning for urgent reform, which has been driven by the shared frustration and pain of experiencing perpetrators refusing to face the reality of their crimes. This Bill has been introduced in response and support of their campaign.
The Bill indicates a shift towards a victim-centred justice system, making victims’ rights and experience a priority. While it aims to ensure that defendants face the full impact of their actions, and “marks a step towards a more accountable system that puts victims first”, as stated by Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales.
Accountability does matter, but at what cost?
Will this work?
The national aim is to ensure justice is served and that victims feel heard, and there are constant changes implemented to achieve this. However, it is crucial not to overlook the perspective of defendants – what impact does forcing attendance have on them, as well as the criminal justice system?
Police officers using reasonable force on defendants could provoke disruptive behaviour, both in and out of court. Although with the intention of upholding accountability, how would this feel for the defendants being forced into the courtroom? With freedom already stripped through conviction and punishment; the threat of additional force used to get to court will reinforce a sense of powerlessness and psychological burden.
Such disruption could also create safety risks, potential delays in court and the overall impact on court proceedings – by putting extra pressure on the existing issues around the criminal justice system’s already limited resources. As opposed to bringing closure to victims and their families, the increased courtroom disruption could strengthen the perception of a justice system that is more focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation.
Despite the well-known issues in relation to prison staffing shortages and capacity pressure, Prison Officers’ Association leader Mark Fairhurst maintains that officers are prepared, trained and capable of handling enforced court appearances.
Is this optimism, or simply an empty promise?
It is argued the Bill targets those who attempt to avoid taking accountability, but what is the real deterrent for defendants serving life or long-term sentences? In practice, an additional two years will have little to no impact. This was also expressed by Chief Justice Lord Brunett of Maldon.
Therefore, restricting the limited freedom within prison, using alternative sanctions, will have a direct impact to a prisoner’s day-to-day life. Ultimately balancing these concerns and acting as a deterrent.
However, there are further concerns raised. Does this Bill place a tremendous amount of strain on an already overstretched criminal justice system? With ongoing funding shortages, court backlogs and existing pressure on time and resources, adding responsibilities for court and prison staff could result in compromising the system’s capacity to deliver justice efficiently.
Having seen the criminal justice system’s struggles firsthand over the past three years, this leaves me to wonder whether this is the most effective way to achieve accountability or is it yet another burden on an already strained justice system.
While the Bill prioritises victims and their families, it is important to remember that defendants matter too. Rather than prioritising punitive measures that potentially provoke conflict, there should be greater focus placed on rehabilitation and meaningful engagement with the justice process.
