For many families, the sentencing of a murderer is the final chapter in a long and painful search for justice. It is the moment when victims’ loved ones confront the person responsible, hear the court’s verdict and, in some small way, begin the process of moving forward.
Increasingly, however, some of the country’s most notorious criminals have chosen not to attend.
Now, the Government says that is about to change.
From next year, judges in England and Wales will be given new powers to punish offenders who refuse to appear in court for sentencing. The measures are designed to target criminals already serving lengthy prison terms or life sentences, for whom additional years behind bars have little practical impact.
The move follows a series of high-profile cases that have reignited debate about victims’ rights and whether offenders should be allowed to avoid facing the consequences of their crimes.
Among the cases that prompted calls for change was the murder of Zara Aleena, the 35-year-old law graduate who was sexually assaulted and murdered while walking home in east London in 2022.
Her killer, Jordan McSweeney, refused to leave his prison cell to attend sentencing.
For Zara’s family, that refusal compounded an already unimaginable loss.
They argued that justice was left incomplete because the man responsible never had to face them, never had to listen to their statements and never had to hear first-hand the devastation his actions had caused.
For grieving families, the courtroom is not simply about punishment. It is about accountability.
It is about looking the offender in the eye and knowing they have heard the consequences of what they have done.
When that opportunity is denied, many families feel robbed of an important part of the justice process.
The same criticism followed the sentencing of Thomas Cashman, the gunman who murdered nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel after forcing his way into her family home in Liverpool. Cashman refused to enter the dock to hear his sentence, prompting fresh questions about whether offenders were being given too much control over proceedings.
Successive governments have attempted to address the issue.
Judges already have powers to add time to prison sentences for offenders who refuse to attend court. However, ministers concluded that such penalties have little impact on offenders already serving life terms or decades behind bars.
The new measures are intended to change that calculation.
Under the proposals, prisoners who refuse to attend sentencing could face up to three weeks confined to their cells, restrictions on social visits and the loss of privileges for almost three months. The aim is to create meaningful consequences that offenders will actually feel, regardless of how long their sentence may be.
The Government says the changes reflect a simple principle.
Criminals should not be able to decide when they engage with the justice system.
Supporters argue the reforms are long overdue. They believe attendance at sentencing is a fundamental part of accountability and that offenders should not be allowed to avoid the discomfort of hearing victim impact statements or the court’s condemnation of their actions.
Critics may question whether the measures go far enough.
Some victims’ advocates have previously argued that offenders should be physically compelled to attend sentencing hearings. Others warn that forcing attendance could create security risks or disrupt proceedings.
The Government’s approach attempts to strike a balance. Rather than physically dragging prisoners into court, ministers are seeking to make refusal carry meaningful consequences.
At its heart, the debate is about more than prison privileges or disciplinary sanctions.
It is about public confidence in the justice system.
When families sit in court waiting to hear a sentence, many believe the offender should be there too. Not because it changes the verdict, but because justice should be witnessed by the person responsible.
For years, campaigners have argued that some of Britain’s most dangerous criminals have been able to deny victims’ families that final act of accountability.
The Government now hopes these new powers will ensure that refusing to attend court is no longer the easier option.
For families like Zara Aleena’s and Olivia Pratt-Korbel’s, the reforms will not undo their loss.
But ministers hope they will help ensure that, in future, those responsible cannot simply hide behind a prison door when the moment of judgement arrives.
