Until a few years ago I had never heard of a single case of a murderer declining to go into the dock to hear their sentence. I doubt whether any of them even realised that they had the choice.  Yet in recent years, the word seems to have spread and something of a fashion has

I’m listening to LBC callers say that forcing the convict to attend their sentencing hearing ‘smacks of medievalism’. All kinds of hell-fire would be unleashed if this law was overturned.

Yet in the US and other countries, convicts are forced to attend their sentencing hearings and the sky didn’t fall. What is so fucking special about the UK?

  • HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    1 year ago

    If I had to guess, I’d say until the sentence has been passed the defendant’s still officially either in custody or on bail, and therefore not under obligation to be moved around at the behest of others, lest they were to be given a non-custodial sentence (obvs not gonna happen in this case, but everyone must be treat the same regardless).

    And I guess they therefore have to treat being in custody (a ‘necessary evil’ for flight risks or public safety) the same as being on bail, as the defendants must be treat as equally as possible pre-sentencing.

    That being said, I’d think a judge would look disfavourably upon a no-show, and could affect the sentencing accordingly. Obviously in this case it was always likely to be a whole life tariff anyway, so Letby had nothing to lose.

    Edit: OK I’ve actually now read the article (go me, lol) and the sentiment in it seems similar.