Page 3 | Rishi Sunak and Lucy Lenny Case

BackAgainstWall · 2023-08-21T18:25:07+00:00

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.

WetBandits · 21/08/2023 21:15

I personally hope she lives to a ripe old age, in fear of the mothers incarcerated alongside her every day. Many people call for the death penalty to be brought back in cases like this but I don’t agree, mainly because it’d be a merciful end to the mental torment I’d like her to endure for the next 50-odd years. I also wouldn’t mind my taxes being spent on a 1:1 guard for her to make sure she doesn’t swing from her bedsheets à la Harold Shipman.

ChristmasKraken · 21/08/2023 21:17

DreamItDoIt · 21/08/2023 20:07

Where the convicted won't attend court for anything, including sentencing, the proceedings should be live streamed to their cells. The court can chose to show them it not friending on his they are behaving. This way they are made to see and hear even if they don't want to.

I'm amused when I see people suggesting this. Are you imaging they have laptops/screens in their cells set up for a Teams call? Or are they going to wheel one in a la school in the 80s? Or give her a laptop for a bit? Can't see that going wrong at all....

DojaPhat · 21/08/2023 22:08

I often wonder how reactionaries manage in day to day life. People are genuinely arguing for the return of among other things the death penalty and mandatory court appearances forgetting (conveniently or not), that once this is over does not mean the law or any other change reverts to its old position.

Take any other example like the revocation of the human rights convention to prevent what is now known as the migrant boat crossings - once the gov have done that it's basically open season.

Think ahead. What would something like this mean in other cases where an antagonistic culprit would be delighted at an opportunity to shout and scream their delight in murdering or committing any manner of horrific crimes against these families loved ones.

Isitsixoclockalready · 21/08/2023 22:16

MaryQueenofSocks · 21/08/2023 20:11

There is an obvious answer to this.

Convicted criminal is held in cell and judge addresses them directly via monitor. Then they can shout and yell all they want but mic is turned off and speaker kept on.

They can hear but cannot disrupt.

Victims can read their statement and see that they are hearing their every word.

That is a fantastic idea.

User8646382 · 21/08/2023 22:19

TV cameras in courts are a really bad idea. As if society hasn’t been damaged enough by reality television.

SemperIdem · 21/08/2023 22:23

You quite clearly don’t understand how laws are made and passed, in a democratic country.

slithytoveisascientist · 22/08/2023 00:17

Streaming it to the holding cell in the court building makes the most sense - it doesn't have to be two way, the purpose is for the convicted to hear the sentencing and the victim impact statements.

No return video of the convicted needed.

slithytoveisascientist · 22/08/2023 00:18

User8646382 · 21/08/2023 22:19

TV cameras in courts are a really bad idea. As if society hasn’t been damaged enough by reality television.

It's already happened, this case was live streamed in parts.

Also it doesn't have to be TV to have a camera.

CruCru · 22/08/2023 00:52

The thing is, who actually benefits from forcing the defendant to attend sentencing? The victim impact statements have been read out and the sentence has been given.

I suspect the main winner from making this person attend court or have it live streamed to her cell will be the newspapers and 24 hour news channels. it would have given them at least a couple more days’ worth of stories.

MammaYamada · 22/08/2023 02:08

First part yabu, second yanbu.

Sayitaintso33 · 22/08/2023 06:45

Calling Lucy Letby a coward is unnecessary. She is a child murderer. The facts will do. There is no need for insults.

CrazyArmadilloLady · 22/08/2023 07:31

People can call her that, if they wish - it’s not down to you.

RhymesWithTangerine · 22/08/2023 07:36

YABU

Why put prison staff through the risk?

Why put court staff, victims and jurors through it?

And also - what a waste of parliamentary time.

calmcoco · 22/08/2023 07:40

Iam4eels · 21/08/2023 19:30

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"?

This. We can't just make quick changes to appease (understandable) anger, the law has to actually work.

CherryMaDeara · 22/08/2023 07:42

BackAgainstWall · 21/08/2023 19:55

@GCAcademic

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

Are you referring to someone else’s thread?

You did say ‘rush to change’ in your OP.

It’s not clear what you want.

Zebedee55 · 22/08/2023 07:45

Dragging everyone into court would end in chaos, making relatives feel worse.

But, they should be in a room, away from the court, with it all being shown on a TV, so they have to watch and listen.

MinnieMountain · 22/08/2023 07:46

Listen to the latest The News Agents podcast OP. They have a former Old Bailey judge clearly explaining why it wouldn’t work.

countrygirl99 · 22/08/2023 07:48

Given she helped comfort the families and helped prepare memory boxes I'm pretty sure she knew exactly what impact she had on the families before she was even charged. Having her present would be purely because the families believe they would get some benefit. I'm not convinced that it would help them in the long term but proper research could convince me if it showed that it did.

upanddown22 · 22/08/2023 07:56

DojaPhat · 21/08/2023 22:08

I often wonder how reactionaries manage in day to day life. People are genuinely arguing for the return of among other things the death penalty and mandatory court appearances forgetting (conveniently or not), that once this is over does not mean the law or any other change reverts to its old position.

Take any other example like the revocation of the human rights convention to prevent what is now known as the migrant boat crossings - once the gov have done that it's basically open season.

Think ahead. What would something like this mean in other cases where an antagonistic culprit would be delighted at an opportunity to shout and scream their delight in murdering or committing any manner of horrific crimes against these families loved ones.

Completely agree

JanieEyre · 22/08/2023 08:00

Sunak talking about inquiries is just knee-jerk stuff designed to distract the electorate from his government's total incompetence in so many areas, not least around adequate pay and staffing in the NHS. Plus he knows that the reality is that he doesn't have time to put it into effect. Much better to leave it for a properly set-up judge-led inquiry which should look at the bigger picture.

Malarandras · 22/08/2023 08:02

Probably because Sunak does not make law, Parliament does.

JanieEyre · 22/08/2023 08:03

Luana1 · 21/08/2023 19:42

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.

Show quote history

Face it, it wouldn't give them closure. Nothing will, sadly.

There has been at least one case of a prison officer escort being kicked to death. Making them force prisoners into court would put them at major risk which just isn't justified.

JanieEyre · 22/08/2023 08:05

slithytoveisascientist · 22/08/2023 00:17

Streaming it to the holding cell in the court building makes the most sense - it doesn't have to be two way, the purpose is for the convicted to hear the sentencing and the victim impact statements.

No return video of the convicted needed.

I don't have a problem with this, but I don't really see the point. Streaming it to the cell still doesn't mean the prisoner will listen to it.

JanieEyre · 22/08/2023 08:10

DreamItDoIt · 21/08/2023 20:07

Where the convicted won't attend court for anything, including sentencing, the proceedings should be live streamed to their cells. The court can chose to show them it not friending on his they are behaving. This way they are made to see and hear even if they don't want to.

You can't make anyone hear anything they don't want to. Given that during the hearing they haven't been convicted of anything, you can't handcuff and gag them throughout the trial, so there is nothing to stop them putting their fingers in their ears. Even if you did that during the sentencing, it can all be blocked out mentally.

megletthesecond · 22/08/2023 08:16

They'd need to be drugged, handcuffed and gagged to make it safe. Even then I daresay some criminals could still be disruptive and cause more hurt. It wouldn't work.
This isn't a teenager who has stolen some cars where they might actually learn from it. People like Letby are so far gone that no one will get through to them.