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.

Are you suggesting that the police/prison staff are unable to manage in your words “25 stone thugs”?

Why not? Compared to the cost of life in prison at the tax payers expense I imagine that a soundproof booth won’t break the bank.

Do you think they need to be present if they have pleaded not guilty? If so what part of the process do you think that the accused needs to attend? Do you additionally think that the accused should decide themselves which parts they attend?

They don’t NEED to attend any of it. If they chose to opt out entirely of the process then that is their right.

I can see why the “make her attend” ethos is appealing to people who want to handwring and feel like “something” is being done but it is a stupid idea which falls down at many very practical hurdles.

Its easy to think of small, mousy Lucy being dragged into court under duress but when it’s a 20 stone convicted male sexual predator who shouts horrific abuse at the family, laughs about the victim and shits himself in the box whilst attempting to assault the prison guards, it’s not quite as appealing. These people have been convicted of heinous crimes - are we expecting them to have an epiphany when they hear how sad the victims parents are? Hell - Lucy Letby spent hours/ days with the parents in the aftermath of killing their children and it didn’t shame her or make her feel guilty.

One doesn't have to agree with or see any logic in Tory spending choices and cuts to understand that they exist. The pp isn't wrong about the state the courts are in.

There's perfect logic in Tory justice policies.

If you fixed the courts, paid criminal legal aid at a living wage and started to speed through the backlog then more prisoners would be sentenced and sent to jail. More victims would decide that it's worth going to court and giving evidence instead of losing patience and withdrawing after three years waiting and no sign of their assailant coming to court. Prisons would be unable to cope with the increase in numbers and they'd need to either spend more on them or lessen headline sentence lengths (electorally disastrous with their core vote).

By cutting spending on the justice system you're free to talk tough about sentencing policies while not actually having to transfer that into expensive bodies behind bars.

I expect it sells newspapers - a pretty young woman who kills babies.

Dragging the defendant in kicking and screaming just because bystanders think they have a right to look upon the accused as the sentence is passed down is what would turn it into a pantomime.

Present or not present, it makes zero difference to the sentence or the court process.

Of course they need to be present if they have pleaded not guilty! How else could they be cross examined?

You do know defendants are under no obligation to take the stand and even if they do, they're under no obligation to answer any of the questions put to them. They don't have to speak at all in court if they don't want to.

Why waste energy and resources on something so pointless? If she is there or not she still will die i prison. It doesn’t matter.

Of course they need to be present if they have pleaded not guilty! How else could they be cross examined?

You can only cross exam a defendant who takes the stand. Most don't,

Of course I realise but if they refuse to cooperate they haven't got much chance of being found not guilty. Defendants appear for their own benefit.

This is a good point.

It gives the appearance of justice, but without the inconvenience of having to actually administer it properly.

You make it sound like somehow the soundproof booth will mean we don't need to pay for life in prison for some criminals

It's both though

And a soundproof both in every single court

There are 150 magistrates court

A sound proof both is approx 15k

So that's £2,250,000 just so you get to see the accused in court for sentencing.

Meanwhile we apparently cannot pay our teachers, police officers, prison service, doctors etc enough

How do you think the public would react to the proposition to spent that much public money on some sound proof booths?

the criminal ?

It doesn’t matter if they don’t care. Their feelings do not matter. The victim’s feelings do matter.

How will it make the victims better to be faced with someone who at best doesn't care about the impact their actions have had or at worst enjoys it?

I still can't get my head around the evilness. 🥲

I thought this too.

Let the guilty person remain in the holding cell but equip each cell with speaker system so that there is no choice but to listen.

Appreciate there will be a cost to this; assuming the fabric of the cell might need to change so that the speaker system could not be damaged.

Why wouldn't you just livestream it on a laptop outside the cell?

My thinking is was that the Witness Impact Statement is there so that those affected by the crime can share how their lives have been ruined (impacted). These are an important part of our court process.

If the sentencing was live streamed into the cell the audio would be the same as if you were in the dock.

I think for impact a laptop might be less effective, especially because cell doors are usually thick metal.

Impact statements aren't for the defendant to hear how the crime has affected the victims, they're for the judge to consider the impact when deliberating what sentence to deliver.

Ah, yes that does make sense.

will remember going forward.

I’d really like to think our PM had more important matters, like children living in poverty, to worry about rather than predicting that a woman would be guilty and that she’d refuse to attend her sentencing therefore he has to scrabble to change the law simply so froth-mouthed revenge fantasist can get a kick knowing she was sat in a dock

I mean that the cost of a solution to see serious criminals in court for their sentences is small when compared to the cost of life in prison.
As I understand it the cost is not the problem it’s that the law needs to be changed.