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.

This. What does anyone think it would achieve to drag someone who knows they will get a whole life tariff into the courtroom? For some defendants, letting them know your feelings and emotions gives them power over you.

Again, that's not how human rights work. "Human rights for all! except those individuals over there because they don't count as human IMO"

I'm not a rights-based thinker myself, (I'm a left wing utilitarian) but if you are then everyone gets them.

Why would rishi sunak even care about us non billionaires? He is just Tory scum.

Nor me.

And what if she laughed at them while the victim impact statements were read out? Or shouted obscenities at them? Would that help give them closure? Probably not.

While I can see how emotive it is, and why people might want an offender dragged in, I don't think it's necessarily going to be helpful for the victims/families.

100% agree. It is very important that changes in law are made after calm consideration and debate and not in anger or to appease the electorate.

Because Rishi didn’t know she wouldn’t appear for sentencing, he’s not a mind reader and the law doesn’t change quickly. There’s been a whole host of cases recently when defendants haven’t appeared in court. Even if the law changes they won’t be able to man handle defendants. They are talking about adding extra time onto sentences which will do nothing when it’s a whole life like Lucy Letby

Would you force a convicted criminal back in to court for sentencing if it gave them an opportunity to laugh at the victims family/families and say they enjoyed committing their crimes?

You can stop people doing things, but you cannot force anyone to do anything.

I think having the statements heard from a prison or other cell designed for the purpose is the best idea so the victims are protected from the response of the criminal. Though I think it would have to be assessed on the risk to staff.
We need to be extremely careful of the right wing media and politicians who's intent to get rid of the Human rights act would affect us all. Ironically, article 8 of the HRA right to a fair trial equally belongs to victims, a right to challenge the state where cases are not brought to trial. The sentences handed to LL mean she will die in prison, she will never be free, justice has been served.

They could be placed in a room and view by video camera - that way they could scream and shout all they like but be placed on mute

I recently attended a sentencing and one was on video camera and the other 3 were in a room at court.

TBH to be sat in a chair at a desk and be on camera the view was much clearer - as we could all see him cry as his sentence was given

I think I'd rather we reframed sentencing about the chance for the victims/victim's families to be heard and made it as little to do with the criminal as possible. We've heard about them during the trial, this is the opportunity to really listen as a community and justice system to the people who were harmed. All this baying for blood seems pointless screaming into the void.
Lucy Letby would be easy to drag to court. She's a slight woman. We need to make laws that equally apply to all.

They already use video links for some court proceedings. They may have a remand prisoner attend remotely from prison for case management hearings. The technology already exists. Courts also use video links for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence.

irrelevant in the case of LL but in other case if you don't appear in court to hear sentencing then you do not get parole until at least 2 years after your sentence ends, as prison is not a punishment but rehabilitation and how can you rehabilitate until you have faced your victims. Then they're would be any calls for early release after half your sentence is served as you're not allowed parole

There are already TV cameras in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

ChristmasKraken. go to any crown court near to you and see how video links in court work, its common place to include video links

Change the law for a statutory inquiry yes, however Lucy letby won’t survive the year in jail so her being at her sentencing makes no difference. Her death will hopefully bring about the families some peace though.

You sound like a student out of the Young Ones

The argument is that a judge led statutory enquiry will take much longer than a non- statutory one so it will take longer for lessons to be learnt.
On balance I think it should be a statutory enquiry. I think the power to compel witnesses and the extra weight the recommendations would have outweighs the extra time it would take.

Agree, I'd be surprised if she lives long either by her own hand or someone else's

It's a terrible idea to do that.
Can you imagine, the criminal would get centre stage to disrupt proceedings and possibly cause injury to the officers in charge of them. Plus, we're not in medieval times anymore.
A better idea is to stream the sentencing a witness impact statements into the cell where the prisoner is held.

@Cyclingmug you sound like a mug who cycles. And probably votes Tory but doesn't tell anyone. The shame.

Of course she'll survive jail. I've no idea why people think she will die. Other hideous murderers survive. Suicide is possible but I'm sure she'll exhaust all avenues of appeal first and by then she'll probably be institutionalised

I think that a screen showing the judge and victim statements in the holding cell if the convicted refuses to come into the court is the best solution. It should absolutely only be a one way feed.

You can't make them listen, but at least there is a chance then for the victims to feel like the words have been heard by the convicted. And they won't know if the defendant has listened or not.

Because the prime minister has no powers to enact laws. We live in a parliamentary democracy, not a dictatorship.

I do neither as it happens but there you go