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

Firm linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone breached £122m PPE contract, judge rules

Published

2 hours ago

October 1, 2025

admin

Firm linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone breached £122m PPE contract, judge rules

A company linked to Tory peer Baroness Michelle Mone breached a government contract of nearly £122m to supply surgical gowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, the High Court has ruled.

The £121.9m sum, the price of the gowns, must now be repaid by the company, PPE Medpro.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) brought the case, saying it provided 25 million “faulty”, non-sterile gowns.

Money latest: Citroen C3 drivers told to stop using cars immediately

On Wednesday, the High Court said the gowns did not comply with the requirement of having a validated process to demonstrate sterility, and it was not possible for the DHSC to have sold them and recoup the loss.

The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone’s husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded the government contract after she recommended it to ministers.

As well as wanting to recover the costs of the deal, the government wanted to recoup the costs of transporting and storing the items, which it said amounted to an additional £8.6m, though the High Court denied the latter request, saying the loss was not proved at trial.

PPE Medpro’s counterclaim that the DHSC should have advised it on how to comply with the contract also failed.

Denied wrongdoing

Both Baroness Mone and Mr Barrowman denied wrongdoing, and neither gave evidence at the trial in June.

She had initially denied involvement in the company or the process through which it was handed the government contract.

However, it was later revealed that Baroness Mone was the “source of referral” for the firm getting a place on the so-called “VIP lane” for offers of personal protective equipment for the NHS.

Yesterday, Baroness Mone accused the government of making her and her husband a “poster couple for the PPE scandal”, in a lengthy online tirade.

The response

In response to the ruling, Baroness Mone said it was “shocking but all too predictable”.

Mr Barrowman said it was “a travesty of justice” and the judge gave the DHSC “an establishment win despite the mountain of evidence in court against such a judgment”.

“Her judgment bears little resemblance to what actually took place during the month-long trial, where PPE Medpro convincingly demonstrated that its gowns were sterile,” he said.

“This judgment is a whitewash of the facts and shows that justice was being seen to be done, where the outcome was always certain for the DHSC and the government. This case was simply too big for the government to lose.”

Ahead of the ruling on Tuesday, PPE Medpro said it intended to appoint an administrator.

The news has been welcomed by Chancellor Rachel Reeves and COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK.

“We want our money back. We are getting our money back. And it will go where it belongs – in our schools, NHS and communities,” Ms Reeves said.

“Profiting and corruption during the pandemic cost lives,” the families group said. “Those responsible must be held to account.”

UK

All GP surgeries in England must offer online booking from today

Published

8 hours ago

October 1, 2025

admin

All GP surgeries in England must offer online booking from today

All GP surgeries in England are required to offer online appointment bookings from today.

Practices must keep their websites and app services available from at least 8am to 6.30pm, Monday through Friday, for non-urgent appointments, medication queries and admin requests.

Many surgeries are already offering online bookings and consultations, but services are typically less effective in working-class areas.

The Department of Health and Social Care says there is a lack of consistency, as some surgeries that offer online services are choosing to switch the function off during busier periods.

The British Medical Association (BMA) has argued safeguards have not been put in place, nor have extra staff been brought in to manage what it anticipates will be a “barrage of online requests.”

The BMA has said GPs are considering a range of actions after voting to enter a dispute with the government over the plan.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has urged the BMA to embrace the plan, saying the union’s resistance is “a real disservice to so many GPs” who have already introduced the service.

‘As easy as booking a takeaway’

The minister said the government will help practices that need assistance to implement the plan, “but we’ve got to modernise”.

Mr Streeting told the Labour Party conference: “Many GPs already offer this service because they’ve changed with the times.

“Why shouldn’t be booking a GP appointment be as easy as booking a delivery, a taxi, or a takeaway? And our policy comes alongside a billion pounds of extra funding for general practice and 2,000 extra GPs.

“Yet the BMA threatens to oppose it in 2025. Well, I’ll give you this warning; if we give in to the forces of conservatism, they will turn the NHS into a museum of 20th century healthcare.”

The measure is part of the broader government pledge to transform the NHS.

Sir Keir Starmer has revealed plans to establish a nationwide “online hospital” by 2027, enabling patients to receive treatment and care from home.

The government said the initiative could provide up to 8.5 million additional NHS appointments within its first three years.

Available via the NHS app, it will allow patients to schedule in-person procedures at local hospitals, surgical hubs or diagnostic centres, reducing delays.

UK

Farage isn’t racist, says PM – as he’s challenged over Trump’s ‘Sharia law’ comment

Published

8 hours ago

October 1, 2025

admin

Farage isn't racist, says PM - as he's challenged over Trump's 'Sharia law' comment

Sir Keir Starmer has said he does not believe Nigel Farage or Reform voters are racist – and also refused to label Donald Trump’s claim that London wants “Sharia law” as such.

The prime minister told Sky News political editor Beth Rigby the president’s claim – made while criticising the capital’s mayor, Sir Sadiq Khan, during a UN summit last week – was “nonsense”.

Asked if it was racist, considering Sir Sadiq is a Muslim, Sir Keir said: “I have been really clear that the idea that in London we’re introducing Sharia law is rubbish.”

He said the mayor – who has branded Mr Trump “racist, sexist, misogynistic” – was doing a “very good job”, but also pointed to his “very good relationship” with the president.

Sir Keir also insisted he does not think Mr Farage or Reform supporters are racist, after targeting the party in his Labour conference speech and claiming its leader “hates Britain”.

Earlier in the week, Sir Keir called Reform’s freshly announced immigration policies “racist” and “immoral”.

Asked if he thinks Mr Farage is a racist, he said: “No, nor do I think Reform voters are racist.

“They’re concerned about things like our borders, they’re frustrated about the pace of change.

“So I’m not for a moment suggesting that they are racist.”

He said he was “talking about a particular policy”, which would see Reform axe the right of migrants to apply for indefinite leave to remain, ban anyone who is not a UK citizen from claiming benefits, and force those applying for UK citizenship to renounce other citizenship.

Reform ‘taking country down road of toxic division’

Sir Keir also refused to say whether he thinks Mr Farage is dangerous, saying: “I think the fight at the next election is going to define us as a country for years to come.

“I think it’s a dangerous moment for the country.”

He said he would not “get into labelling the man”.

“I’m talking about the ideas and what he stands for and what I stand for,” he added.

“I think that taking our country down the road of toxic division where you don’t want to fix problems because if they’re fixed, you lose your reason to exist, I think that is dangerous for our country.”

Farage: Starmer unfit to be PM

Mr Farage reacted to Sir Keir’s speech by accusing him of being “unfit to be the prime minister of our country”.

“I used to think the prime minister was a decent man, somebody that I could talk to and chat to,” he said.

“We might disagree on our worldview, but I thought he was a profoundly decent human being. I am completely shocked at his behaviour.

“I hope when he wakes up tomorrow morning he feels ashamed of what he has done. This is a desperate last throw of the dice for the prime minister who’s in deep trouble, a prime minister who can’t even command the support of half of his own party.

“But I’m sorry to say, I now believe he is unfit to be the prime minister of our country.”