We can’t force Letby to attend court
Discover more from A Lawyer Writes
We can’t force Letby to attend court
Nor should we
Why have the Telegraph and the Daily Mail led their coverage of the Lucy Letby case this morning with her expected non-appearance in court for sentencing?
The Mail quotes a father whose twin boys Letby tried to murder:
What gives her the right to refuse to come up from the cells or to tell the judge that she doesn’t intend to listen to his sentence? The law must change. The judge should be given the power to summon her into the dock to face myself, my wife and all the other victims who desperately want her to hear our victim impact statements.
The Telegraph infers from remarks by a “government source” that she could be forced to attend. The source said:
Lucy Letby should be in court to hear society’s condemnation of the enormity of her crimes, expressed by the judge. If that requires the use of lawful enforcement, so be it. If she continues to refuse, that will only strengthen our resolve to change the law as soon as we can.
That’s not quite the same as saying she could be forced to attend. If the government source happens to be the experienced criminal barrister who sits in the secretary of state’s office, he will know better than to second-guess, undermine or contradict the trial judge.
The Telegraph quotes Mr Justice Goss as saying: “The sentencing hearing will take place whether she is present or not. The court has no power to force her to attend. Therefore, there is nothing I can do about it.”
Of course, defendants should attend court to hear victim impact statements and the judge’s sentencing remarks. That may bring some comfort to victims and their families. But, as I wrote yesterday, there is no point in punishing non-attendance by imposing an additional prison sentence on a defendant who is going to receive a whole-life order.
Sir Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, has spoken about the practical difficulties of bringing unwilling defendants into court. The Secret Barrister wrote about this in April. I wrote about it in February. But the government is pressing ahead with legislation.
I come back to my original question: why do some newspapers think this is the most important aspect of the story?
Is it because two days have passed since the jury completed their task and Letby’s conviction for murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others is less important than her unwillingness to accept the enormity of her crimes?
Is it because some believe that one more day in court will make more of an impact on her than 10 months in the dock? Do they think she will otherwise never find out what her victims’ families and the judge say today?
Or is it because we project our own feelings on someone who behaves in such an unnatural way, imagining she will suffer more from a day in court than a life in prison?
Her choice not to attend today is the last decision she will ever make about where she spends her time. In the years to come, perhaps she will learn to regret it.
Update 1530: the judge’s sentencing remarks have now been published. Some passages were not broadcast to avoid identifying the victims’ families. In this version, victims’ names have been replaced by letters of the alphabet.
We can’t force Letby to attend court
Article by Matthew Scott in The Daily Telegraph
If killers won’t go to court, take court to their cells
It might not be appropriate to force all murderers into the dock, but they could be made to watch from prison
The Daily Telegraph22 Aug 2023MATTHEW SCOTT Matthew Scott is a barrister at Pump Court Chambers FOLLOW Matthew Scott on Twitter @Barristerblog; READ MORE at telegraph.co.uk/opinion
Lucy Letby’s refusal to enter the dock yesterday follows a trend among that tiny set of convicted murderers who have little or nothing to lose because they are facing whole life, or virtually whole life, terms. Now Alex Chalk, the Justice Secretary, has promised to bring forward legislation in the next King’s Speech forcing defendants to attend court for their sentencing. But will it work?
It is not strictly correct to say that judges are powerless in such circumstances. They can order a defendant to come to court, and a refusal to obey such an order would be a contempt, punishable by a further, and consecutive, term of imprisonment.
But while that might be persuasive for someone facing a sentence of a few years, it loses all potency to those anticipating a whole life, or an exceptionally lengthy term. What judges cannot currently do is to demand that the prison, or prisoner escorting companies, drag a reluctant prisoner into the dock.
No doubt, to many people it will seem rather odd that prisoners, who have little or no say in the matter when the prison service wishes to move them from prison to prison, are nevertheless able to veto their transport to court, or (as in Letby’s case) from the court cells to the dock.
There are, of course, problems in moving reluctant, and often very dangerous, prisoners safely. Yet such people are moved around the prison system all the time, and the difficulties of taking sentence refuseniks to court, and thence into the dock, could be overcome.
Yes, it may add expense and inconvenience. It could place further burdens upon a system that already functions very poorly and quite often breaks down completely. But it is not the fundamental problem.
The real difficulty arises once they are in court. From what we have learnt of Lucy Letby’s mysterious character, it seems unlikely that, had she been brought into the dock, she would have attempted to disrupt the proceedings. But most mass murderers – those facing whole life terms – aren’t like her. It is no good making a law that might work to get a quiet young woman into the dock if it would not also work for the serial strangler, the gangland capo di tutti capi or the unrepentant terrorist.
Are they to be literally manhandled into the courtroom in chains? And once there, what if they continue to struggle and shout? What if they take a final opportunity to protest their innocence? For obvious reasons even the most secure docks are not entirely soundproof.
The normal and very effective remedy is to send disruptive defendants to the cells at the slightest sign of trouble, and the hearing then continues in their absence. But that would render the whole exercise of dragging them into the dock pointless, and enable a determined defendant to make the court look ridiculous.
Are they to be gagged as well as handcuffed and fettered? Since the abolition of the death penalty, the imposition of a whole life term is as solemn an occasion as the justice system provides. So it should be. The spectacle of a gagged and shackled prisoner in the dock would convert a court into something more like a circus, with the defendant as a freak-show attraction.
For some bereaved relatives, no doubt, the presence of the defendant at the moment of sentence provides an important catharsis. For others it is enough to know that an appropriate sentence has been passed; and others again may feel that the sooner the murderer disappears from public sight forever, the better.
Ultimately, the primary purpose of a trial is not to parade a convicted murderer like an exhibit. It is not even, important though that is, to provide “closure” to the relatives. It is to decide the defendant’s guilt, and if necessary to impose the proper sentence. At the same time, it is true that the sentencing hearing in a murder case has now developed a secondary purpose: for the relatives to convey – either in person or through prosecution counsel – the effect that the crime has had upon them. Many such “victim personal statements” were read out at yesterday’s hearing.
They seldom affect the actual sentence, and nor should they. The law does not value the life of a murder victim according to the poignancy of the bereaved relatives’ pleas. They do however give a voice to the murderer’s victims, and they represent an attempt to ensure that the murderer is made aware of the invariably catastrophic effect of their crime.
All of these purposes could be achieved without the physical presence of the defendant, by ensuring that the murderer who refused to come to court is placed in a cell into which is broadcast the proceedings from the sentencing court. They would be compelled to hear, if not to listen to, the statements of the bereaved and the judge’s sentencing remarks.
Extract from The Guardian of the sentencing of Lee Rigby's killers
9 custody officers to remove them
Adebolajo had claimed his act of butchery was a military strike commanded by God and that he was a soldier of Allah.
The judge said their actions were "a betrayal of Islam and of the peaceful Muslim communities who give so much to our country".
Adebowale shouted "that is a lie" at the judge, later shouting "you know nothing about Islam" in Sweeney's direction.
After more barracking, the judge said: "Gentlemen you have a choice"– only to be interrupted as mayhem broke out.
Adebowale shouted: "I swear by Allah that America will not be safe."
At that point Adebolajo joined in, shouting "Allahu Akbar" ("God is greatest"), and nine security guards flanking them in the dock grappled with the men.
Adebolajo was pinned to the ground, his legs in the air, before being carried out head first to the cells. Adebowale was also dragged out.
The violence lasted over a minute and was so severe that protective screens over the dock rocked as scuffles continued.