Rishi Sunak and Lucy Lenny Case

[BackAgainstWall]

Why on earth didn’t Rishi Sunak rush to change the law to make it mandatory for offenders to appear in court at sentencing.

One would assume he has known about the Lucy Letby case for months, if not years. As usual with this government, the horse has already bolted.

Why doesn’t he want a statutory inquiry into the Lucy Letby case, where witnesses are legally compelled to present evidence?

Why would he want to rush it and in my opinion miss facts/gloss over such harrowing events?

It’s a complete insult to those poor parents and consultants.

*Lucy LETBY

there was an interesting man on radio 4 who strong arm murderers and the like to court, only for them to shout and antagonize the victims in court - so that is another view point

do you have her name wrong on purpose?

She should be dragged into court with her mouth duct taped up in my opinion, but that would probably be deemed to contravene some human right 🙄

Richi Sunak is incapable of doing anything useful whatsoever.

I don’t understand why the inquiry is not statutory either.

There is already a thread on this…

@Willmafrockfit
No, typo

They could surely decide on each individual court sentencing.

Lucy Letby is a coward and in my opinion should have faced her sentencing.

Knee-jerk changes to the law aren't the way forwards, law has to be emotionless in order to be just - have you never heard of the saying "hard cases make for bad law"?

To what end? Literally what difference would it make to the sentence?

Because that law wouldn’t just compel her - there are presumably good reasons for it being in place. Reviewing it may be needed but the impact would go far beyond her, so needs consideration outside of her particular case.

The sentence would remain the same but it may have given the parents of her victims a tiny bit of closure to see her listen to their victim statements and they could look her in the eye as she was sentenced.

She absolutely should be bound and gagged and dragged to the sentencing. But also fuck off with your anti human rights dog whistling. I like having rights, thanks very much.

Why would her being in court for sentencing be any better?

In my opinion she should have been present at sentencing and heard every single word the judge had to say and not cower away in her cell.

I think it should be the victims' choice whether to be present or not at sentencing.

I have been present when defendants have behave abominably during sentence proceedings. It’s distressing for everyone, but most critically the victims.

there is nothing to be gained from forcing a defendant up and having had the task of persuading clients they should, it has never gone well.

You want human rights for yourself but not for LL? That isn't how it works...

You actually want to live in a country where the PM has the power to change the law overnight? Frightening.

@GCAcademic

No one said anything about the PM having power to change things overnight.

Are you referring to someone else’s thread?

This particular case might be a very strong case, but there will be miscarriages of justice.

I don’t think anyone should be treated so awfully that a wrongly convicted person could never begin to recover from it. Being imprisoned would be bad enough, but at least an innocent person could be released from jail.

What this woman has done is horrific and unforgivable, but we shouldn’t turn into savages as a result.

Anyone who has tried to persuade a toddler to do something they don't want to do I am sure understands why insisting perpetrators attend sentencing will know how well it would go.

You have no comprehension on the law and how long it takes to change. Google it

My apologies. I see you said he should have seen this coming.

In which case: you want the PM to make decisions and laws based on assumptions he's made about a jury trial before it's even started? You don't see a problem with the PM anticipating a guilty outcome in advance of a specific trial?

I hope the remaining high chiefs in the Countess of Chester hospital get the sack and lose their pensions.

As for two of them who have already skulked away and retired early (one in France), I hope they get stripped of their pensions.

But of course that's not going to happen is it.

Keir Starmer has said that if the Government want to bring forward legislation mandating defendents hearing their sentence in person, then the Labour Party will support it without party politics.

Could they keep her handcuffed elsewhere and play it to her?

How could he know in advance that she's refuse to come to sentencing?

Also you can just rush laws through, even when parliament is sitting (which it's not!)