Compulsory attendance at sentencing

Remember what happened at the Lee Rigby trial. It'll just encourage more defendants to kick off during the sentancing proceedings. Whilst I'm angry she didn't attend I think some misplaced legislation on it may severely backfire in the future.

It's very easy to say 'so they should be' in knee-jerk reaction but it's not as clear-cut as that, and whether it would achieve anything useful is debatable.

The compulsion probably does not exist because wilful non-appearance is very rare and seems a new phenomenon. The previous murderer to refuse to attend the sentencing hearing was Thomas Cashman, who killed a young girl by firing through the front door of a house in which his quarry - another drug-dealer - had tried to hide.

If nothing else the Courts could install a video link to the holding cells in the building.

No. As a Barrister pointed out on youtube soon after the sentence for Lucy Letby was announced, the minute the accused gets into court for the verdict, all focus is then on them, not the court.
If you had somebody who was of the mind to create and cause bodily harm either to themselves or those in the court before being manhandled away it does nothing for 'justice being seen to be done and makes those due in court either as accused; witnesses; counsel or Juror fearful of what might happen if they ever have to appear.

There is no point in anyone attempting to discuss this issue with you if you persist in deleting their responses.

I think you'll find it's not a new proposition - it's certainly been raised a few times earlier this year over various fatal shootings in England. Without actually looking it up, I must say that my impression is that this refusal by convicted criminals to appear in Court is a fairly recent phenomenon. I certainly can't remember it ever being an issue earlier in my life.

No, and I'm not sure any of those passionately arguing for it made had much of an idea about what they really wanted. It all seems a little primitive and voyeuristic to me. If the criminal thus taken to court against their will subsequently assaults (verbally or physically) other attendees, then a considerable disservice has been done to the delivery of justice or the recovery of victims of crime.

Courts already have this power, they are restrained only by the risk of the offender resisting so hard that unreasonable force would be required.

It’s not clear whether the government really intend to introduce legislation to this effect or not. They say they do, but the legislation has been mysteriously delayed. That’s why the issue has now been given publicity, because the Opposition are criticising the government for having delayed it.

@Picklebobble2, @SunshineGirl @ArishMell And anybody I've missed: Thanks for the comments that addressed the question I asked.