Forum menu
Just heard the verdicts read out. It’s not a single whole life order but seven whole life orders
This always strikes me as daft. I know that they have to sentence each crime but you can’t undertake more than one whole life sentence. Probably alone in thinking this but it just seems theatrical.
On the subject of the OP I’m with all those that think it would be pointless. I can see it may be cathartic for the families of the victims. There are just so many ways it could backfire. The lady in this case needs to be in a secure hospital. I just can’t accept that somebody could be of sound mind and do what she has done.
The News Agents podcast has done quite a good 20 mins on this today. First interviewee was a bloke who was at the Manchester Arena bombing and his perspective of a condemned no show. Understandably emotive description of why they should be forced to attend. Understandable and had huge empathy listening to it but slightly toe curling at the same time in its blinkered outlook. Then a retired judge making lots of valid points about how it would logistically be hard to achieve and would you really want the consequences anyway. The whole piece was about as precise a summary of why justice policy and procedure is not left the victims to determine.
This wouldn't really achieve anything. It's popular with victims, but they are the last people you should consult with for justice.
It's a reflection on us, that this crime happened at all.
@funkmasterp I think it is done for the families of the victims, it is important that the state prosecutes on behalf of all the victims, who wants to explain to the bereaved parents why the murder of their child was in some way less important or less evil than the murder of another child.
Also, with a substantial enquiry to follow, probably judge led and public, a large amount of additional evidence may come to light. Unlikely, but if something in that gave rise to an appeal on one or more of the verdicts, then on a successful appeal the sentences would be reviewed. With independent individual sentences per case, the door remains closed unless the whole lot were to be overturned.
Thanks for clarifying. Never thought about it from a potential appeals perspective.
I can see why the families of victims will be upset but disagree with forced attendance for many of the reasons above and, ultimately, it is a distraction being fired out to cover the many significant shortcomings in the criminal justice system caused by years of Tory rule. Chaff.
On a practical side the amount of violence that could be involved would make the whole exercise a shambles, traumatic for those viewing it and a significant risk for those involved the custody process. It’s all very good being a hard man with a nurse but try that with a jihadist or a career criminal who doesn’t give a toss. Violence for no practical reason.
It’s all very good being a hard man with a nurse but try that with a jihadist or a career criminal who doesn’t give a toss. Violence for no practical reason
Nailed it.
Forcing them into court, it's a no from me. All a bit voyeuristic. Others have put it more eloquently than me.
''Cable tie them to a chair and gag them, no kicking and screaming allowed. In the last two publicised cases recently of the guilty refusing to come into court the families wanted it to happen. It’s that opinion that counts not anybodies on here.''
How do you feel about that and Andrew Malkinson?
How do you feel about that and Andrew Malkinson?
I doubt it would have been an issue in that case. Andrew Malkinson, as it turns out is not a criminal and comes across as a pretty decent human being. I don't know if he attended for the verdict and sentencing during his case, but as gut wrenchingly difficult as it would have been, I suspect he did. If he didn't I'm sure he would have done, without 'kicking and screaming', if it had been a legal requirement at the time as is proposed now. Because his actions and comments since release have shown a continued concern for the plight of the victim, as well has his own miscarriage.
My sympathies to all the victims of the heinous act.
My view is that the convicted must show up for the sentencing regardless of how s/he will react.
It is for the people to decide if they want to confront or to see the convicted in-person.
As for revenge or retaliation etc I have no problem with that because that's just human nature.
Surely the law and any prison sentence is there to protect the public from a criminals activities (actual or as deterrent) and if possible to rehabilitate that person.
Seems in more recent times public and news demanding more retribution from the process than actually looking to tackle the what surely needs to be the core aims as above.
While victim statements may assist with some level of closure, unless the perpetrator is accepting of responsibility and wanting to change then doesn't the whole process just give the perpetrator more limelight and risk pandering to their ego?
I suspect if judges really wanted to take a stance just now, they could without new legislation and insist than at least some of those who refuse are “brought”.
Unlikely as one of the judge's duties is to maintain order in the courtroom. Compunction is likely to backfire and adding a plus 1 or 2 to and endless sentence is fatuous.
Both David Allen Green and Joshua Rozenberg have covered this today in their blogposts.
My lay opinion is that it is more culture war bollocks to distract hoi polloi.
If the Daily Mail the government wants to see more prisoners in court being sentenced, perhaps they could hire more police officers, ensure existing police officers are less useless, ensure there are more prosecutors and Legal Aid defence lawyers, ensure there are enough judges and court staff and translators, ensure the court rooms are adequately heated or cooled or sealed from the rain...
My lay opinion is that it is more culture war bollocks to distract hoi polloi.
This, 100x this. It's just intended to position the government as being "tough on crime / criminals" - whereas actually the reverse is true, because.....
If the Daily Mail the government wants to see more prisoners in court being sentenced, perhaps they could hire more police officers, ensure existing police officers are less useless, ensure there are more prosecutors and Legal Aid defence lawyers, ensure there are enough judges and court staff and translators, ensure the court rooms are adequately heated or cooled or sealed from the rain…
The victim impact statements are (in my understanding) addressed to the judge for them to consider as part of their sentencing - I didn't think that the "audience" for them was the person convicted.
I think peoples outrage here should be laser-focused on why she wasn't caught sooner - not on this shameless attempt to froth-up the gammons (are we still calling them that?).
If the Daily Mail the government wants to see more prisoners in court being sentenced, perhaps they could hire more police officers, ensure existing police officers are less useless, ensure there are more prosecutors and Legal Aid defence lawyers, ensure there are enough judges and court staff and translators, ensure the court rooms are adequately heated or cooled or sealed from the rain…
Yep, as most people don’t spend time in court and their only experience is the fantasy world of tv,I don’t think it’s appreciated how it’s been deliberately ran down and how shocked they would be if they actually got dragged into it.
I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that they were threatened with a disciplinary if they did. I’d say the problem is they went through the appropriate procedures & were therefore at the mercy of management.
Ultimately "management" are the Govt; they set the culture, budget, training, structure etc etc - is this why they haven't agreed to a 'statutory inquiry'?
I don't really get the victim impact statement. As a cathartic release yes but is court at sentencing the place? Are two deaths by car sentenced differently because one had an emotional family statement and one was a single person?
Seems slightly at odds with justice is blind.
There are no gavels in British courtrooms.
ACK-chually...🤣
https://www.legalcheek.com/2014/12/there-is-an-english-court-where-gavels-are-actually-used/
Don't agree with forcing them into the dock for reasons already mentioned - potential to turn it into a freak show etc. In my view the victim statements should be broadcast on repeat into LL's cell for every waking hour of her day for the rest of her life.
I believe the court of Judge Lionel Nutmeg also has a gavel. Not sure where that sits in the hierarchy of English law though, may not even be a real judge.
Here's a thought.
What about those who -want- to be in court?
There must be an element amongst the serial killer types who want a media circus, who thrive on it. Those who want to yuk it up in front of their victims' families, "yeah, look what I did." Those who crave notoriety.
If we're suggesting mandating that The Accused has to show up for court, how do we deal with those types?
No-one is seriously suggesting this. You're looking for consideration and thought that just doesn't exist. The time between the thought occurring to someone and the time it was reported in the media was approximately 23 minutes.
I guess (and again, by typing this I'm not attempting to give a stupid idea any credence) there is a difference between all convicted people people being compelled to go to court on sentencing day and the judge being compelled to keep them there if their attitude or behaviour will be too poor to make it acceptable.
Looks like its going to happen then https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66660136
Although "new penalties applying in cases where the maximum sentence is life imprisonment" seems a bit vague and weak
Criminals are to be made to attend their sentencing hearings in court, including by force if necessary, or face the prospect of longer in prison.
I suspect most judges will opt for the longer sentence rather than have a full on scrap in the dock.
Longer in prison would presumably be an additional 'comtempt of court' charge where the convicted refuses to attend or is disruptive?
There we have the front pages of the mail and express on Thursday.
Another piece of pointless posturing.
Longer in prison would presumably be an additional ‘comtempt of court’ charge where the convicted refuses to attend or is disruptive?
Just been on the news they are bringing in this new thing
And there starts the problem. Says someone gets 10 yrs for a murder. They dont want to come up for sentencing, but judge says if you dont I will give you another 2 yrs. Murderer says - blimey thats not good. So he comes up and insults the family, confirming that he enjoyed murdering their kid. Does he get another 2 yrs or just another year, or no additional sentence, after all he did comply.
If they go up to the doc and are quite clearly not interested in the proceedings do they get 10 yrs + 6 months or stick at 10 yrs.
If they go up and listen intently (or are shit hot actors) , and then applaud the victim statement, do they get a reduced sentence.
Bloody stupid the whole thing.
Generally speaking, any new laws or guidance which is brought in quickly, and in response to something that is high profile, will be poorly thought out, unworkable and will come with a string of unintended consequences, this is no different.
The same is true for newly created law that is named are a person. Whilst that victims family wants a change, Bobs Law, Wendys Law etc is usually reactionary popularist politicing with limited practical purpose*
*sweeping generalisation with, I am sure, some very good exceptions.
*sweeping generalisation with, I am sure, some very good exceptions.
Max and Keira's Law? A rare example of a private member's bill that made it onto the statute books, too.
Generally speaking, any new laws or guidance which is brought in quickly, and in response to something that is high profile, will be poorly thought out, unworkable and will come with a string of unintended consequences,
For balance, there are plenty of laws that went through whole drawn out legislative process and were still complete and utter cluster ****s.
From governments of all flavours
Yes, and they were poorly thought out, unworkable too.
there are plenty of laws that went through whole drawn out legislative process and were still complete and utter cluster ****.
Like what, specifically?
Dangerous Dogs Act for starters. Defining a pitfall breed was badly done.
Any of the privatisation acts but specifically telecoms, trains, power, water and gas. The regulators are to an organisation toothless wonders.
The current online safety bill. It will break encryption and no online business will be safe.
These are just the ones I don't need to research.
If, as suggested, it will be up to the Judge to decide to compel the guilty to sentencing then there may at least be a possibility that sense will prevail when it is likely that there will be unpleasant consequences of forcing attendance.
There are much bigger problems in the justice system which need more attention:
Prison overcrowding / re-offending rates
Barristers working for less than min wage, resulting in bad representation.
If, as suggested, it will be up to the Judge to decide to compel the guilty to sentencing
The judge gets the call for what will maintain order in their court and the compunction of a whole life sentence prisoner is not likely to maintain a calm and ordered court room. Plus there's a good chance that after the first warder gets seriously injured by a recalcitrant offender and a huge settlement has to be made under H&S law it will all be quietly shelved as unworkable.
Just been on the news they are bringing in this new thing
They've said they will propose a law when Parliament is back in session. Labour's response quoted in the BBC report was:
"This is the fourth time in over 18 months the government has promised action - and yet again they have failed to outline a proper timeline on when they will act."
Obviously that's exactly what Labour would say - but this government has a track record of promising a lot of things and not doing them.
Dangerous Dogs Act for starters. Defining a pitfall breed was badly done.
Dangerous Dogs Act was literally the textbook example of bad, rushed law when I studied politics 20+ years ago!
The scumbag government are currently announcing all maner of measures. They have little intention of worrying about the consequences as long as it bolsters the vote of the Daily Cretin readers.
See also the environment and roads policies.
They are completely morally bankrupt and an utter disgrace.
Sorry rant over.
Generally speaking, any new laws or guidance which is brought in quickly, and in response to something that is high profile, will be poorly thought out, unworkable and will come with a string of unintended consequences, this is no different.
This, really. Bad cases make bad laws.
This is just performative electioneering bullshit. Everything they do between now and the vote will either be to raise money from their donors (eg watering down environmental rules for housebuilding) or to score cheap political points.
Bring back the Cones Hotline!
So passing the buck to judges for the politicians to hide behind. I’m not sure how the threat of an extended sentence on a whole life tariff is meant to work. Does it mean they won’t release the body for the funeral until the extended time period has passed? I suspect in reality any extension will disappear as part of the parole process in the real world and this is just a knee jerk pr stunt for the government.