A sentencing hearing is the court session where a judge decides the punishment for a crime. It presents an empowering opportunity for victims to face their perpetrators, read their victim impact statements and get closure. Yet, victims are frequently denied this moment when defendants refuse to leave their cells. The law as it stands does not give the court any power to compel defendants to face their victims, but this is about to change.
What Are the Changes?
The Victims and Courts Act 2026 received royal assent in April and will be brought into force in Crown Courts next year. Section 1 deals with remanded offenders who refuse to attend their sentencing hearings by inserting two new provisions, section 41A and 41B, into Part 3 of the Sentencing Code 2020.
Section 41A empowers Crown Court to order an offender to attend their sentencing hearing where they have either refused or there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they will do so. Any further refusal after an order is made will place that defendant in contempt of court, which carries a maximum sentence of 2-years imprisonment.
Section 41B allows the court to impose additional prison sanctions for adult offenders whose failure to attend their sentencing hearing constitutes contempt of court.
The Sentencing Act 2020 (Prison Sanctions) Regulations 2026 set out the additional prison sanctions that can be imposed for adults under section 41B. These include:
Loss of prison privileges: up to 84 days;
Cellular confinement: up to 21 days;
Loss of social visits: up to 27 days; and
Restrictions on social visits: limited to once every four weeks for up to 84 days.
These Regulations were laid before parliament on 22 October and require approval by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords before they can be formally enacted.
Analysis
The idea of 'compelling' an individual to do something seems arbitrary. However, it is important to note that there is a distinction between 'compulsion' and 'force'. Compulsion means that somebody is required to do something, while force is making them do it against their will. The Act and the Regulations still leave the defendant free to choose how to behave, so they cannot be forced to attend. This eases any human rights concerns.
These reforms are an excellent method in promoting accountability for all types of offenders. Those facing shorter prison sentences may be threatened by the possibility of facing an additional 2-year imprisonment. For those facing lengthy sentences, consequences beyond imprisonment assist to secure their attendance when they would otherwise have little reason to leave their cell. This would address what has been a prominent issue in recent months, where a string of criminals refused to enter the dock, including Thomas Cashman, Southport Killer Axel Rudakubana and Crossbow Killer Kyle Clifford. Adding more time would have been unlikely to stop these offenders from absenting themselves, but the prospect of being isolated from friends and family may have done.
Conclusion
These reforms are a genuine and welcome way to improve attendance at sentencing hearings that strengthen the powers of the court in a non-arbitrary manner. They will enable offenders to face the consequences of their actions and help victims to feel heard and acknowledged as part of the sentencing process.