In this case, the judge has now ordered him to appear. <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/19/nicholas-prosper-sentencing-latest-news/>
<https://archive.is/7E64U> if you don't have a Telegraph subscription.
Non-appearance at sentencing seems to be a fairly modern trend - or
was it quite common in the past but the media didn't bother to report
it?
If non-appearance is a right, is it right for a judge to overrule it?
If a judge can already overrule a refusal to attend court, is it
really necessary to propose a law to compel defendants to attend court
for sentencing? <https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-01-28/debates/992481E3-46C0-4E1D-AA66-DB657BCEC96E/SentencingAttendanceOfOffenders>
Nick
On 19/03/2025 14:29, Nick Odell wrote:
In this case, the judge has now ordered him to appear.Interesting - thanks for that link.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/19/nicholas-prosper-
sentencing-latest-news/>
<https://archive.is/7E64U> if you don't have a Telegraph subscription.
Non-appearance at sentencing seems to be a fairly modern trend - or
was it quite common in the past but the media didn't bother to report
it?
If non-appearance is a right, is it right for a judge to overrule it?
If a judge can already overrule a refusal to attend court, is it
really necessary to propose a law to compel defendants to attend court
for sentencing?
<https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-01-28/
debates/992481E3-46C0-4E1D-AA66-DB657BCEC96E/
SentencingAttendanceOfOffenders>
Ordering the defendant to go to the court and into the dock is certainly
an option as a way of placating the angry relatives of the victims. But
there is the obvious risk that he will disrupt the proceedings by
shouting abuse or jeering at the relatives and if he dug his heels in
and refused to come to the dock there is no viable santion that the
judge can impose that would have any effect on him.
In this case, the judge has now ordered him to appear.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/19/nicholas-prosper-sentencing-latest-news/>
<https://archive.is/7E64U> if you don't have a Telegraph subscription.
Non-appearance at sentencing seems to be a fairly modern trend - or
was it quite common in the past but the media didn't bother to report
it?
If non-appearance is a right, is it right for a judge to overrule it?
If a judge can already overrule a refusal to attend court, is it
really necessary to propose a law to compel defendants to attend court
for sentencing?
<https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-01-28/debates/992481E3-46C0-4E1D-AA66-DB657BCEC96E/SentencingAttendanceOfOffenders>
On 2025-03-19, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
In this case, the judge has now ordered him to appear. >><https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/19/nicholas-prosper- sentencing-latest-news/>
<https://archive.is/7E64U> if you don't have a Telegraph subscription.
Non-appearance at sentencing seems to be a fairly modern trend - or was
it quite common in the past but the media didn't bother to report it?
If non-appearance is a right, is it right for a judge to overrule it?
If a judge can already overrule a refusal to attend court, is it really
necessary to propose a law to compel defendants to attend court for
sentencing?
<https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-01-28/debates/ 992481E3-46C0-4E1D-AA66-DB657BCEC96E/SentencingAttendanceOfOffenders>
It's not really to do with "rights", it's just stupid and pointless.
The readers of these articles are presumably fondly imagining that the
guilty criminal will be forced to stand shamefaced in the dock while the judge thunderously denounces their abhorrent behaviour and rebukes them
for their sins. But the defendant may have other ideas.
The state can physically force the defendant to be in the court,
although if they really don't want to be there then there is a monetary
cost to this in the form of guards required and a human cost in the form
of the risk to those guards. And I'm not sure what is supposed to happen
if the defendant fakes a medical emergency or causes a genuine one.
The state cannot force the defendant to stand shamefaced. Indeed they
may, instead of looking meek and repentant, shout and swear and threaten
the victim(s) or their relatives, which I'd think would be worse all
round than them simply not being there. The state could only prevent
this by physically gagging them, in which case then we are entering into "human rights" territory.
So overall it's a very great deal of effort just to create increased
risk to everyone involved and for essentially no benefit to anyone.
On 2025-03-19, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
In this case, the judge has now ordered him to appear.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/19/nicholas-prosper-sentencing-latest-news/>
<https://archive.is/7E64U> if you don't have a Telegraph subscription.
Non-appearance at sentencing seems to be a fairly modern trend - or
was it quite common in the past but the media didn't bother to report
it?
If non-appearance is a right, is it right for a judge to overrule it?
If a judge can already overrule a refusal to attend court, is it
really necessary to propose a law to compel defendants to attend court
for sentencing?
<https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-01-28/debates/992481E3-46C0-4E1D-AA66-DB657BCEC96E/SentencingAttendanceOfOffenders>
It's not really to do with "rights", it's just stupid and pointless.
The readers of these articles are presumably fondly imagining that
the guilty criminal will be forced to stand shamefaced in the dock
while the judge thunderously denounces their abhorrent behaviour
and rebukes them for their sins. But the defendant may have other
ideas.
The state can physically force the defendant to be in the court,
although if they really don't want to be there then there is a
monetary cost to this in the form of guards required and a human
cost in the form of the risk to those guards. And I'm not sure
what is supposed to happen if the defendant fakes a medical
emergency or causes a genuine one.
The state cannot force the defendant to stand shamefaced. Indeed
they may, instead of looking meek and repentant, shout and swear
and threaten the victim(s) or their relatives, which I'd think
would be worse all round than them simply not being there. The
state could only prevent this by physically gagging them, in
which case then we are entering into "human rights" territory.
So overall it's a very great deal of effort just to create
increased risk to everyone involved and for essentially no
benefit to anyone.
The state cannot force the defendant to stand shamefaced. Indeed
they may, instead of looking meek and repentant, shout and swear
and threaten the victim(s) or their relatives, which I'd think
would be worse all round than them simply not being there. The
state could only prevent this by physically gagging them, in
which case then we are entering into "human rights" territory.
So overall it's a very great deal of effort just to create
increased risk to everyone involved and for essentially no
benefit to anyone.
On 19/03/2025 15:14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The state cannot force the defendant to stand shamefaced. Indeed
they may, instead of looking meek and repentant, shout and swear
and threaten the victim(s) or their relatives, which I'd think
would be worse all round than them simply not being there. The
state could only prevent this by physically gagging them, in
which case then we are entering into "human rights" territory.
So overall it's a very great deal of effort just to create
increased risk to everyone involved and for essentially no
benefit to anyone.
A practical low-cost solution would be a room with a video link. If the convict (he's
no longer a defendant at this stage?) is abusive, his microphone can be turned off.
However, I really can't see the point. How many criminals are reformed by hearing the
sentencing remarks?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:33:17 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,398 |