Father of Murdered Officer Warns Mandatory Criminal Sentencing Hearing Attendance Could Lead to Chaos
The debate around mandatory attendance for convicted murderers and rapists at their sentencing hearings has sparked controversy, with arguments from both supporters and critics of the proposed law change. Bryndon Hughes, father of the late PC Nicola Hughes, who was killed in 2012, has raised concerns about the potential for chaos in courtrooms if offenders who disrespect the law are forced to attend their hearings.
Hughes, a former prison officer with 25 years of experience, fears that killers who have nothing to fear may use their presence in court to create havoc and further traumatize the victims’ families. He argues that many of these offenders are sociopaths who feed off the anguish and grief on display during such hearings. Hughes recalls instances where offenders have acted out, shouting abuse, fighting, and disrupting court proceedings, causing more anguish and delaying justice.
While Justice Secretary Alex Chalk has expressed his intention to change the law to ensure offenders do not shirk their sentencing hearings, Hughes believes it is a knee-jerk political reaction that has not been thoroughly considered. He suggests that mandatory appearances may not bring comfort to the families of victims and that they should instead find solace in the sentences handed down.
Supporters of the law change argue that it is essential for offenders to face their victims and their families and witness the impact of their crimes. They believe that attendance at sentencing hearings would bring some form of closure and help victims navigate the healing process.
This debate comes in the wake of several high-profile cases where convicted criminals, including those responsible for the murders of Sabina Nessa, Zara Aleena, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, and the Countess of Chester Hospital baby deaths, have refused to attend their sentencing hearings. Their actions have renewed calls for legal measures to ensure established procedures are followed and respect is shown to the justice system.
Justice Secretary Alex Chalk has vowed to pursue changes to the law regarding mandatory attendance at sentencing hearings as soon as possible. However, critics argue that legislation alone cannot guarantee an offender’s presence in court. While judges possess the power to make attendance orders, they cannot compel prison authorities to use force to bring offenders to court, as that would be illegal. Instead, it falls on prison staff to issue direct orders to prisoners, demanding their presence. If an offender continues to refuse, reasonable and proportional force may be used.
The issue of mandatory attendance at sentencing hearings has also caught the attention of UK Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer, a former director of Public Prosecutions. Starmer has accused the government of dragging its heels on changing the law, highlighting the need for prompt action.
As the discussions surrounding mandatory attendance in court hearings continue, it is clear that a balanced approach is necessary. While ensuring that offenders face the consequences of their actions, it is equally important to consider the potential logistical and emotional challenges that may arise from their presence. Striking a balance that respects victims and their families while maintaining order and efficiency in the courtroom remains a complex task for lawmakers and justice officials.
