The United Kingdom government has outlined new measures intended to penalize convicted criminals who refuse to attend their sentencing hearings, a behaviour seen by many as a final act of disrespect toward victims and their families. The Ministry of Justice announced last week that judges would be empowered to impose additional punishments on offenders who do not appear for sentencing, including up to three weeks of solitary confinement, loss of certain privileges for up to three months, suspension of visiting rights for 27 days—with an exemption for children visiting incarcerated parents—and restrictions on other social visits for up to 84 days.

These sanctions were described by the government as “tough new prison punishments.” Claire Waxman, the victims’ commissioner for England and Wales, endorsed the measures as a proper response to complaints from victims’ families, who have expressed frustration that some offenders effectively avoid facing justice by absenting themselves from court proceedings.

However, critics argue that the proposed punishments lack meaningful deterrent effect. The additional penalties, some say, are relatively minor compared to the sentences offenders face and are unlikely to compel attendance at sentencing. The government has been urged to adopt stronger measures since several high-profile criminals have repeatedly refused to be present in court for their sentencing hearings in recent years.

Observers recall notable cases such as Emma Tustin, who in 2020 declined to attend her sentencing for the murder of her six-year-old stepson, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, a case marked by severe abuse preceding his death. Similarly, Chun Xu did not appear for his sentencing after strangling a teenager in a Welsh village. More recently, Jordan McSweeney absenting himself from court during sentencing for a violent murder and Lucy Letby’s refusal to attend her life sentence sentencing—the latter case involving the murder and attempted murder of multiple infants—have underscored concerns over the perceived loophole.

Then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak condemned such absences as “cowardly,” while Keir Starmer, opposition leader and former director of public prosecutions, promised to close what he called a “shamefully exploited loophole” if his party gained power. Despite these statements, critics contend that the government’s current response falls short of meaningful reform.

There is also debate over the use of “reasonable force” powers that prison officers have, which could theoretically be applied to bring unwilling defendants to court. However, practical concerns remain about the potential distress caused to victims’ families if offenders are forcibly removed from their cells, as well as the risk of disruptive outbursts during proceedings.

One suggestion, proposed by former Conservative justice secretary Robert Buckland, was to allow sentencing remarks to be broadcast directly into the cells of absent defendants, possibly accompanied by video feeds that would enable family members to witness the proceedings remotely. Despite its practicality, this approach has not been adopted by the current or previous administrations.

As it stands, the government’s new measures represent a limited attempt at addressing the issue, leaving critics and victims’ advocates calling for clearer and more effective policies to ensure that offenders face their sentencing in person.