Connect with us

Published

on

Criminals who refuse to attend their sentencing hearings will face further punishment under a new law.

The government is introducing the Victims and Courts Bill to parliament today, which will include more jail time or loss of privileges in prison in England and Wales for criminals who refuse to attend court for sentencing.

Several high-profile offenders have refused to face victims’ families, sparking a public outcry and calls for a change in the law.

Undated handout photo issued by Merseyside Police of Thomas Cashman, 34, who has been found guilty of murdering nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel and injuring her mother, Cheryl Korbel, 46, at their family home in Dovecot, Liverpool, on August 22 last year. Issue date: Thursday March 30, 2023.
Image:
Thomas Cashman, who murdered nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel in her home in Liverpool, refused to attend his sentencing hearing in 2023. Pic: PA

The families of murdered primary school teacher Sabina Nessa, law graduate Zara Aleena and mother-of-three Mary Jane Mustafa – also known as Mihrican “Jan” Mustafa – have all campaigned for the change after their killers were absent from sentencing hearings.

Ms Nessa’s sister, Jebina Islam, Ms Aleena’s aunt, Farah Naz, and Ms Mustafa’s cousin, Ayse Hussein, said: “This move holds offenders to account.

“It sends a clear and necessary message: the justice system is not something you should be able to opt out of.

“It is not about punishment through force – but about ensuring that perpetrators cannot remove themselves from the consequences of their actions.”

They said the legislation is a “step in the right direction” and the proposed punishments indicate it is “being taken seriously”.

The trio added: “This change supports victims and society alike. It shows justice being done.

“It gives families a moment of recognition and a form of reparation. It is a moment of reckoning for the convicted.”

Under the new legislation, judges will be able to sentence offenders for up to two more years in prison for avoiding justice.

Those already facing lengthy imprisonment or whole life orders could have a range of prison punishments, such as confinement to their cells and being stripped of privileges, such as extra gym time.

Read more from Sky News:
Teenagers to be allowed to drive trains
GCSE results to be released digitally

Olivia Pratt-Korbel
Image:
Olivia Pratt-Korbel was killed by Thomas Cashman

Former Tory prime minister Rishi Sunak had pledged to change the law after meeting the mother of murdered nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel, and Sir Keir Starmer promised to enact it.

Thomas Cashman, the gunman who killed Olivia as he chased a drug dealer who had run into her Liverpool home, did not appear in court to hear his life sentence in April 2023.

Earlier this year, triple crossbow and knife killer Kyle Clifford refused to attend his sentencing when he received a whole life order.

Southport child murderer Axel Rudakubana was removed from his sentencing hearing for repeatedly shouting in January.

Justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said: “I would like to thank the remarkable families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena and countless others who have campaigned tirelessly for offenders to have to face the reality of their crimes by attending their sentencing.

“Justice isn’t optional – we’ll make sure criminals face their victims.”

The bill also says it will restrict parental responsibility from child sex offenders who commit serious crimes against their own children.

The powers of the Victims’ Commissioner will also be strengthened to require them to produce an independent report on whether agencies are meeting their statutory duty over the Victim’s Code to hold the government to account.

Child protection charity the NSPCC backed the move, saying they hope it will improve how young victims and survivors are treated, but said it was “not a complete solution”.

Continue Reading

Politics

Robinhood sues New Jersey, Nevada over sports contract threats

Published

on

By

Robinhood sues New Jersey, Nevada over sports contract threats

Robinhood sues New Jersey, Nevada over sports contract threats

Robinhood Derivatives has sued New Jersey and Nevada regulators to stop any potential regulatory action over its sports event contracts.

Continue Reading

Politics

WazirX users approve restructuring plan again after court rebuff

Published

on

By

WazirX users approve restructuring plan again after court rebuff

WazirX users approve restructuring plan again after court rebuff

WazirX has been trying to get a restructuring plan through the Singapore High Court to start returning funds to users impacted by the $234 million hack in 2024.

Continue Reading

Politics

Labour smell dirty tricks over asylum hotel court ruling – but the risks are clear

Published

on

By

Labour smell dirty tricks over asylum hotel court ruling - but the risks are clear

“It’s an interesting moment,” was how one government source described the High Court ruling that will force an Essex hotel to be emptied of asylum seekers within weeks.

That may prove to be the understatement of the summer.

For clues as to why, just take a glance at what the Home Office’s own lawyer told the court on Tuesday.

Granting the injunction “runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests”, the barrister said – pointing out that similar legal claims by other councils would “aggravate pressures on the asylum estate”.

Right on cue and just hours after the ruling came in, Broxbourne Council – over the border in Hertfordshire – posted online that it was urgently seeking legal advice with a view to taking similar court action.

The risks here are clear.

Police officers ahead of a demonstration outside The Bell Hotel. Pic: PA
Image:
Police officers ahead of a demonstration outside The Bell Hotel. Pic: PA

Recent figures show just over 30,000 asylum seekers being housed in hotels across the country.

If they start to empty out following a string of court claims, the Home Office will struggle to find alternative options.

After all, they are only in hotels because of a lack of other types of accommodation.

There are several caveats though.

This is just an interim injunction that will be heard in full in the autumn.

So the court could swing back in favour of the hotel chain – and by extension the Home Office.

Read more:
Who says what on asylum hotels?

Protesters in Epping on 8 August. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Protesters in Epping on 8 August. Pic: Reuters

We have been here before

Remember, this isn’t the first legal claim of this kind.

Other councils have tried to leverage the power of the courts to shut down asylum hotels, with varying degrees of success.

In 2022, Ipswich Borough Council failed to get an extension to an interim injunction to prevent migrants being sent to a Novotel in the town.

As in Epping, lawyers argued there had been a change in use under planning rules.

The hotel has been the scene of regular protests. Pic: PA
Image:
The hotel has been the scene of regular protests. Pic: PA

But the judge eventually decided that the legal duty the Home Office has to provide accommodation for asylum seekers was more important.

So there may not be a direct read across from this case to other councils.

Home Office officials are emphasising this injunction was won on the grounds of planning laws rather than national issues such as public order, and as such, each case will be different.

Failing Labour approach or Tory tricks?

But government sources also smell dirty tricks from Epping Council and are suggesting that the Tory-led local authority made the legal claim for political reasons.

Pointing to the presence of several prominent Tory MPs in the Essex area – as well as the threat posed by Reform in the county – the question being posed is why this legal challenge was not brought when asylum seekers first started being sent to the hotel in 2020 during the Conservatives‘ time in government.

Epping Council would no doubt reject that and say recent disorder prompted them to act.

But that won’t stop the Tories and Reform of seizing on this as evidence of a failing approach from Labour.

So there are political risks for the government, yes, but it’s the practicalities that could flow from this ruling that pose the bigger danger.

Continue Reading

Trending