Lucy Letby: Can criminals like the serial child killer be forced into court?

Published

2 years ago

August 21, 2023

admin

Child killer Lucy Letby’s refusal to attend court for the conclusion of her trial has sparked outrage – and calls for changes in the law.

Letby, who was found guilty of murdering seven newborn babies and attempting to murder six others, was only present for two of the four days verdicts were delivered – and refused to return to the dock for her sentencing.

Some of the victims’ families, campaigners and the prime minister have described her behaviour as “cowardly” and a “slap in the face”.

What are the rules?

The rules around defendants appearing in court are laid out in guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

There are no laws that make it a legal obligation – but the default is that they are expected to attend.

Some of the families in the Letby case along with Cheryl Korbel – the mother of nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel who was shot dead by Thomas Cashman – are calling for a new law that would close the loophole.

According to the CPS, there may be a good reason for the defendant not to attend court – for example if they are unwell or claim to be unwell.

Felicity Gerry KC, an international barrister and professor of legal practice, tells Sky News often young people do not attend court for fear that they won’t get bail and will therefore lose their homes and be sent straight to prison.

But when there is deemed to be no good reason, the judge can make an order to compel them to attend.

If they are on bail this will mean a warrant for their arrest so they can be brought to court. If they are already in custody, they can order the prison governor where they are being held to get their officers to “use force to secure attendance”.

What happens when force is used?

If both the judge and the prison governor have agreed the prisoner should attend, a team of typically three prison officers will be sent to their cell door, according to Ian Acheson, a former prison governor and Home Office official.

Once they explain the judge has made the order, most people comply, he says.

“If it’s made clear to the offender that they’ll be going to court, you exclude the possibility of refusal for around 95% of them. You get a bit of a feedback loop where they accept it’s going to happen.

“And guilty people who experience and express remorse usually want the opportunity to be able to see or speak to their victims or their families.”

But if “persuasion fails”, Mr Acheson explains: “That person would be physically restrained with the purpose of putting them in handcuffs.”

He adds: “Force is a very tightly governed thing. But prison officers have all the same powers as a police constable at that point and can use the same force as they can.”

In the face of violence, officers are dressed in personal protective equipment and can also use leg restraints.

They then take the prisoner in handcuffs to a prison van so they can be driven to court and placed in cells inside the court building.

Why might a prisoner still not come to the dock?

Even once prison staff have driven the defendant to court, they can still refuse to leave the cells.

“The judge would be informed the prisoner has resisted,” Mr Acheson says. “But then in theory it’s for the judge to then say: ‘I care’ or ‘I don’t care – bring them to court’.”

Reasons for not forcing them to the dock include the risk they could use the opportunity to “retraumatise victims” or “turn it into a circus”, which can often be the case among terrorists, according to Mr Acheson.

Wendy Joseph, a former Old Bailey judge, tells Sky News judges try to avoid these situations at all costs as they can be “devastating” for victims’ families.

But Mr Acheson believes that current guidance allows defendants to manipulate the system.

“As far I understand the discretion rests with the offender, which is morally wrong. The principle needs to belong to the judge – not the perpetrator”.

He adds while some argue forcing people to appear is “uncivilised”, in the case of Letby, he believes: “It’s more uncivilised to murder babies.”

“The occasions where it would be inappropriate are tiny in my opinion – and in Letby’s case there’s nothing significant that speaks to that.”

Professor Gerry, however, says the system needs to keep a sense of humanity for defendants – as well as victims.

“We’re not a country that shackles people and drags them to court as some kind of medieval practice. Reasons for refusal can be very complicated. I think it’s very dangerous to start calling for people to be forced to court.”

Why is sentencing so important?

Guidance on compelling people to come to court varies according to the offence and point in proceedings.

Mr Acheson says that in line with fair justice principles – judges should only be able to demand attendance once someone has been convicted, which means they wouldn’t have to be there for the verdicts being delivered.

Sentencing hearings are among the “most significant” for victims and their loved ones, because recently introduced impact statements allow them to show the perpetrator the effect their crimes have had on them.

And in the Letby case, this form of restorative justice is particularly important, Mr Acheson adds.

“People have been so grievously harmed by her – they deserve to look her in the eye and say ‘this is what you’ve done to me’.”

Judge Mr Justice Goss said in his sentencing remarks Letby will be given a transcript of them – along with the victim impact statements.

So what could be changed?

In recent years a trend has emerged of criminals refusing to attend court – despite the serious nature of their crimes.

Examples include Koci Selamaj, who did not attend his sentencing for the murder of Sabina Nessa in London, and Cashman, who refused to appear after killing Olivia Pratt-Korbel in Liverpool.

Her mother’s Face The Family campaign is calling for the legal loophole to be closed.

Children’s minister Claire Coutinho has told Sky News “more law is probably required”. “The justice secretary [Alex Chalk] said he’s very committed to making sure these laws are in place,” she said.

Former Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said the new Victims and Prisoners Bill – which is going through parliament – could provide the answer.

He suggested this could include forcing defendants to watch proceedings via video link from their cells – something Mr Acheson describes as a “silly distraction”.

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said the only options available are dragging people by force – or threatening them with longer prison sentences – neither of which he agrees with.

“There’s no point in imposing a prison sentence on someone who’s going to be in prison for the rest of their lives,” he told Sky News.

UK

Bhim Kohli: Girl 13, and boy, 15, found guilty of manslaughter of 80-year-old dog walker

Published

12 hours ago

April 8, 2025

admin

Bhim Kohli: Girl 13, and boy, 15, found guilty of manslaughter of 80-year-old dog walker

A 13-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy have been found guilty of the manslaughter of an 80-year-old dog walker who was attacked in a Leicestershire park.

Bhim Kohli was found lying on the ground in Franklin Park in Braunstone Town, near Leicester, on 1 September last year and died the next evening of a spinal cord injury.

The grandfather, who was attacked just yards from his home, suffered a broken neck and rib fractures consistent with “something heavy striking the rib cage”, the trial heard.

The boy, who was 14 at the time of the attack, and the girl, who was 12, cannot be named because of their ages.

During a six-week trial at Leicester Crown Court, jurors heard that Mr Kohli was racially abused before the incident.

The girl had also taken a photograph of Mr Kohli in Franklin Park a week before, the court heard.

The jury deliberated for almost seven hours before reaching unanimous verdicts on the pair, who will be sentenced next month.

Mr Kohli was shoved to the ground and slapped in the face with a shoe by a boy wearing a balaclava, the trial heard.

A police report into the incident included a statement from a witness who described “seeing the boy forcefully pushing the old man on to his back”.

The jury heard the witness described the old man as “ending up on the floor screaming”.

A statement from PC Rachelle Pereira said: “Mr Kohli was repeatedly screaming out in pain, shouting out ‘My neck’.”

Her statement said the witness told the police officer she saw a young white boy wearing a black balaclava “shove the old man to the floor and sprint”.

The boy, who denied inflicting the fatal injuries, told a friend he would go “on the run” to Hinckley, in Leicestershire, the day after the attack but was arrested by police minutes later while hiding in a bush, the court heard.

In a letter written two months after the attack, the court heard the boy said “I did it and I accept I’m doing time” and “I kinda just needed anger etc releasing”.

Read more:
Bhim Kohli’s family pay tribute

Mr Justice Turner remanded the boy in custody and granted the girl bail, but told her his decision “should not be taken as any indication as to the sentence when the time comes”.

The boy had also been charged with murder, but was found not guilty by the jury on that count.

The defendants, who sat in the dock for the first time since their trial began, appeared upset as the verdicts were given.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

UK

Trump tariffs could disrupt medicine supplies to UK, warns health secretary

Published

12 hours ago

April 8, 2025

admin

Trump tariffs could disrupt medicine supplies to UK, warns health secretary

Donald Trump’s tariffs could disrupt the supply of medicines into the UK, the health secretary has warned.

Wes Streeting said the government was “constantly watching and acting on this situation” after the US president refused to back down from the punitive policy, despite turmoil in the markets.

So far Mr Trump has imposed a series of tariffs of varying severity on countries across the world, including a 10% baseline tax on imports from all nations and a 25% levy on all cars imported to the US.

Politics latest: PM prepares to face questions from senior MPs

His actions have sparked fears of a global trade war, with the UK’s benchmark stock market index, the FTSE 100, only just witnessing a slight rise this morning after three days of steep losses.

While the reciprocal tariffs have not yet included pharmaceutical products, there are concerns this could change in the near future.

Speaking to Wilfred Frost on Sky News Breakfast, the health secretary said that even before the US president’s tariff agenda – which has seen him impose a 10% baseline tax on imports from all nations – there had been “issues with medicines production and supply internationally”.

“We are constantly watching and acting on this situation to try and get medicines into the country, to make sure we’ve got availability, to show some flexibility in terms of how medicines are dispensed, to deal with shortages,” he said.

“But whether it’s medicines, whether it’s parts for manufacturing, whether it’s… the ability of businesses in this country to turn a profit, this is an extremely turbulent situation.”

Mr Streeting, who was speaking following the announcement that the government has recruited more than 1,500 new GPs since 1 October, said the steps taken by Mr Trump were “unprecedented in terms of global trade”.

“As ever in terms of medicines, there’s a number of factors at play,” he said.

“There have been challenges in terms of manufacturing, challenges in terms of distribution, and if we start to see tariffs kicking in, that’s another layer of challenge, but we watch this situation extremely closely.

“We work on a daily basis to make sure that we have the medicine supply this country needs.”

Sir Keir Starmer had been seeking to secure an exemption for the UK from Mr Trump’s punitive tariffs.

But last week, the UK was hit with both the 10% baseline tariff on all imports and the 25% tariff on all cars imported to the US.

The latter tariff could prove particularly damaging for the UK, owing to the fact that the US is the car sector’s largest single market by country – accounting for £6.4bn worth of car exports in 2023.

On Monday, the prime minister announced he would relax rules around electric vehicles in order to mitigate the worst effects of the US tariffs.

While the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars remains in place, regulations around manufacturing targets on electric cars and vans will be altered to help firms during the transition.

Luxury supercar firms such as Aston Martin and McLaren will still be allowed to keep producing petrol cars beyond the 2030 date, while petrol and diesel vans will also be allowed to be sold until 2035, along with hybrids and plug-in hybrid cars.

UK

Prince Harry’s security case back in court – all you need to know

Published

12 hours ago

April 8, 2025

admin

Prince Harry's security case back in court - all you need to know

Prince Harry has arrived at court for the start of a two-day hearing about his security arrangements.

The Duke of Sussex is appealing a ruling dismissing his challenge to the level of police protection he receives in the UK, and his case will be heard in front of three judges across Tuesday and Wednesday.

The prince’s dispute goes all the way back to 2020, and is one of several high-profile legal battles he has brought to the High Court in recent years.

So what is the case about, what has happened in the courts so far and what’s happening now?

What is the dispute over?

Harry received full, publicly funded security protection until he stepped back from royal duties and moved to America with wife Meghan in March 2020.

Once he moved away, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) – which has delegated responsibility from the Home Office for royal security – decided he would not receive the same level of protection.

But Harry has argued that his private protection team in the US does not have access to UK intelligence information which is needed to keep his wife and children safe.

He therefore wants access to his previous level of security when in the country, but wants to fund the security himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill after he stepped down as a senior member of the Royal Family.

The duke’s legal representative said in a previous statement: “The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in.

“With the lack of police protection comes too great a personal risk.

“In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”

The legal representative added: “Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats.

“While his role within the institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.”

What’s happened in court so far?

He filed a claim for a judicial review of the Home Office’s decision shortly after it was made, with the first hearing in the High Court coming in February 2022.

At the start of that hearing, Robert Palmer QC, for the Home Office, told the court the duke’s offer of private funding was “irrelevant”, despite his safety concerns.

In written submissions, he said: “Personal protective security by the police is not available on a privately financed basis, and Ravec does not make decisions on the provision of such security on the basis that any financial contribution could be sought or obtained to pay for it.”

He added Ravec had attributed to the duke “a form of exceptional status” where he is considered for personal protective security by the police, “with the precise arrangements being dependent on the reason for his presence in Great Britain and by reference to the functions he carries out when present”.

The barrister added: “A case-by-case approach rationally and appropriately allows Ravec to implement a responsive approach to reflect the applicable circumstances.”

The case didn’t conclude until 28 February 2024, when retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled against Prince Harry.

He ruled the decision to change his security status was not unlawful or “irrational”, and that there had been no “procedural unfairness”.

The judge added: “Even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant [Prince Harry] relief.

“This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different.”

Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the government’s position in this case and we are carefully considering our next steps.

“It would be inappropriate to comment further.”

After the ruling, a legal spokesperson for Harry said he intended to appeal, adding: “The duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec’s own written policy.

“In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis.

“The duke’s case is that the so-called ‘bespoke process’ that applies to him is no substitute for that risk analysis.

“The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing.”

Prince eventually gets green light to appeal against High Court ruling

In April 2024, Harry was refused permission to challenge the ruling by the High Court, but was told he could apply to challenge it again directly to the Court of Appeal.

He did so, and in June 2024 the Court of Appeal said it would hear the duke’s challenge following a direct application from his lawyers.

Granting the appeal, Judge David Bean said he was persuaded “not without hesitation” that Harry’s challenge has a real prospect of success.

The two-day Court of Appeal hearing is set to begin at around 10.30am on Tuesday.