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.

Your use of the word “pantomime” is really disrespectful to the court process. I just think that there is a beginning, middle and end and that the accused should be there throughout. Obviously others think that the accused should get to decide on their being in court for the sentencing and this is the existing system.

IMO it’s not that we should be dragging people into court kicking and screaming or worse, gloating and laughing, it’s that the defendant seems to be allowed to decide pre-emptively that they don’t want to go.

The presumption should be that “you will be going to the sentencing.” They are taken to the court, so they are there, so the appearance or lack of in the dock should be something which happens at the time not with notice given.

The victim statements are to help the judge when determining sentencing. And the truth is that LL got off on the pain and suffering of others, so she would likely have gained from hearing the victim statements not the other way around.

I think that the solution shouldn’t be for her to be dragged kicking and screaming into court, but for her to have to appear before the judge who will repeat the sentence to her in person. The judge could do that at the prison or at the court, it doesn’t really matter.

What difference does it make whether the judge tells her the sentence or someone else tells her the sentence?

Surely it is possible to think up ways to protect the victims. These people should be asked what they want. I would say, just based on my opinion, that there could be a soundproof place for the accused to sit. The sound could be streamed into this place so that the accused could hear/hear an interpreter or see a sign language person or whatever was needed. A curtain could be pulled across to protect the victims at the victims request. If the victim did not want to be in the same room then the accused could be moved but still able to follow the process.

You sound buttercrackers!

A sound proof room with curtains to pipe in the sentence? What's the point?

For a start, I can absolutely be in a room with someone droning on and not take in a single word of it.

But why? What would be the point? Livestream it to a cell if you must but I d much rather think of the sentencing as a chance to hear from the victims.

Let's remember the babies, their families, what they've lost. I feel by lettering them we've forgotten that they are the most important people in all this. I wish they'd given them false names instead of numbering based on death order. It feels like, again, the murderers choices take priority

I think that the solution shouldn’t be for her to be dragged kicking and screaming into court, but for her to have to appear before the judge who will repeat the sentence to her in person. The judge could do that at the prison or at the court, it doesn’t really matter

Are you suggesting the Judge has to do the sentencing twice @BeenThereDoneThat101 ?

I'm not sure if I have understood correctly or not.

If that is the suggestion, well the courts have a backlog of over 60,000 cases. I would much prefer the judge has the time available to move on to the next case instead of doubling their workload.

Why though? What difference does it make?

Agree with you!

What part of the court process do you think the accused person should be present for? None of it? Some parts? And why?

The perpetrator should be there to face the judge and the victim’s families - the principle of the perpetrator being allowed to call the shots and refuse to attend absolutely stinks!

I don’t think the person facing the sentence should be in any position to call any shots. It should be non-negotiable. Should be there, no questions asked.

The law does need to change and quite frankly I hope Rishi Sunak acts sooner rather than later.

In USA I'm sure the criminals have to be there.

If she’s the calculated cold killer she’s been convicted of being she isn’t going to care much about hearing the families’ impact statements.

In many ways a psychopath would feed off it so you might imagine they would prefer to attend.

They should broadcast it in their cells.

She'll get her justice in prison I'm sure,

I don't think they necessarily need to be present for any of it if they have pleaded guilty.

You are assuming that they don't want to face them when at best they probably don't care..

How would someone being taken into court kicking and screaming help the parents of the victims?

According to press reports she will be segregated from other prisoners and probably be under constant surveillance

The trouble is she might well enjoy that. She went to a lot of trouble to try to keep track of her victims' relatives through Facebook so it looks as if she got some sort of further kick from their grief.

On the multiple threads about this issue, countless posters have come up with various implausible suggestions and not one of them has engaged with the issue of the extra manpower they'd need. We have a shortage of judges, courts, prison officers... near enough everything that the system requires to keep functioning. You can't half tell who understands that and who doesn't.

Do you want to be a prison officer dragging a violent 25 stone thug into court to hear sentence? Is this really a good enough reason for putting lives at risk?

This government literally doesn't spend money on keeping the rain out of court buildings. There is no chance they are going to spend a fortune putting in special soundproof booths with audiostreaming facilities.

This. I think she’d love to hear the anguish from the parents. Evil bastard.

Imagine she broke down in tears and said sorry rather than was abusive, for example. Would it make it more forgivable? Would that make you more accepting about your newborn baby being murdered? I wouldn't have thought so.

I'm quite sure that if that happens everyone would simply assume that she was being manipulative, and I suspect they'd be right. It wouldn't make the parents feel one jot better.

In the US they also do this:

In 2009, Arizona state prisoner Marcia Powell was locked in an outdoor cage on a 107-degree day. She was unresponsive within four hours, and died after prison officials removed her from life support without first contacting her court-appointed guardian. She basically baked to death. Powell was serving a 27-month sentence for prostitution, had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and was taking anti-psychotic and mood-stabilizing drugs that made her more susceptible to excessive heat.

They also have a spectacularly high redicitvism rate so copying them could be crime worse not better.