New UK Penalties for Killers Who Refuse Sentencing
If you have ever wondered what happens when a convicted killer refuses to come into court for sentencing, the answer is changing. The UK Government says Crown Court judges in England and Wales may soon be able to punish some offenders inside prison for staying away from sentencing hearings, rather than relying only on longer sentences or contempt of court. For many families, sentencing is one of the few moments when the person who caused the harm must hear the court speak directly about what they did. When an offender refuses to attend, that absence can feel like one final act of defiance. That is the problem ministers say these new rules are trying to address.
This proposal builds on an earlier change in the law. Judges already have powers to order offenders into the dock, and someone who still refuses can be punished for contempt of court with a fine or up to two extra years in prison. **What this means:** the system did not have a complete gap before now. The issue, according to ministers, is that an extra term may not feel like much of a threat to a murderer who is already facing a very long sentence, or even the rest of their life in custody.
Under the new rules laid before Parliament, a Crown Court judge could impose prison sanctions directly if an offender refuses to attend sentencing. The Government says that could mean loss of prison privileges for up to 84 days, cellular confinement for up to 21 days, loss of social visits for up to 27 days, or limits on social visits to once every four weeks for up to 84 days. In plain English, this is about hitting parts of prison life that still matter to someone serving a long sentence. Ministers argue that if extra years are not enough to change behaviour, restrictions on daily routine, contact and privileges may carry more weight.
Prisons minister Catherine McKinnell has framed the change as a question of accountability. Her argument is that offenders should not be able to choose when they face justice, especially at the point when victims' families are in court to hear the sentence. The Government has pointed to high-profile cases such as Thomas Cashman and Jordan McSweeney, who refused to appear for sentencing, as examples of why this matters. Had these powers existed at the time, ministers say judges could have imposed extra prison punishments on top of the penalties already available.
There are some limits and exceptions, and they matter. For offenders aged 18 to 20 who are held in Young Offender Institutions, the maximum punishments would be lower: up to 21 days' loss of privileges or up to 10 days' cellular confinement. The Government also says visits from prisoners' children would be exempt. That reflects a different principle running alongside the tougher tone: where it is safe, appropriate and in the child's best interests, the justice system still tries to protect family contact for children who have done nothing wrong.
Another important point is that these powers would not apply only to someone who never comes to court at all. They would also cover offenders who attend sentencing but are then removed because they are disruptive in the courtroom. The sanctions could be used instead of, or as well as, other penalties available to the court. So when you hear ministers say they are going further, they mean judges would have another set of consequences to use, not a replacement for the powers they already have.
Claire Waxman, the Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales, said the announcement reflects years of campaigning by families who felt offenders were being allowed to opt out of one of the few public moments of accountability in the justice process. She highlighted the experiences of families connected to the murders of Sabina Nessa, Zara Aleena, Jan Mustafa and Olivia Pratt-Korbel. That part of the story matters because it shows how criminal justice policy often changes. It is not only written in Whitehall offices; it is also shaped by relatives who keep pressing a simple question: if a court can order someone to attend sentencing, what should happen when they still refuse?
No rule can guarantee that every prisoner will attend sentencing. The Government itself accepts that. What these measures do is raise the cost of refusing, so the absence carries sharper consequences even for someone already serving a long term. The regulations are due to go through the usual parliamentary process before coming into force next year. **What to watch:** whether Parliament approves the changes, how consistently judges use them, and whether prisons can enforce them in a way that gives families the sense of accountability they have been asking for.