Criminals who refuse to attend sentencing face losing prison privileges under new rules

The new measures target offenders who refuse to attend their sentencing hearings. They are intended to prevent prisoners from avoiding accountability before victims’ families and the court. The changes apply in England and Wales and are due to begin next year.

Judges will be able to impose several prison sanctions. These include removing prison privileges for up to 84 days and confining an offender to their cell for up to 21 days. Social visits can be withdrawn for up to 27 days. Visits can also be limited to once every four weeks for 84 days.

The Ministry of Justice says the powers cannot guarantee attendance. However, it believes they will strengthen the consequences and ensure offenders are appropriately punished. The measures could add punishment even for prisoners already facing decades behind bars.

A sentencing hearing is the court stage where a judge formally decides and announces the punishment for a convicted offender. The offender is expected to attend because sentencing is a direct act of justice. It also allows victims’ families to see the process reach a formal conclusion.

The article describes refusal to attend as an insult to victims and their families. Claire Waxman said that such refusal compounds families’ trauma and removes one of their few moments of accountability. Attendance therefore matters not only to the court, but also to people affected by the crime.

Existing laws already require offenders to attend sentencing. Refusal can lead to a fine or up to two additional years in prison for contempt of court. The new rules add prison-based sanctions, although ministers acknowledge they cannot guarantee attendance.

The new rules set different maximum periods for different sanctions. The longest periods are 84 days. During that time, an offender may lose prison privileges, or visits may be restricted to once every four weeks. These sanctions could affect prisoners already serving very long sentences.

Cell confinement can last for up to 21 days. A separate sanction can remove social visits for up to 27 days. The measures give judges several ways to punish refusal, rather than relying on one fixed penalty. The exact sanction and length would depend on the powers being used.

The rules are due to come into effect next year in England and Wales. The Ministry of Justice says they will strengthen the consequences for refusing to attend. It also accepts that no sanction can guarantee an offender will appear at sentencing.

Before the new prison sanctions begin, existing laws already require offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. An offender who refuses can face a fine or be jailed for a further two years. The article identifies this additional imprisonment as punishment for contempt of court.

Contempt proceedings address the refusal to follow the court’s attendance requirement. The existing penalty is separate from the new prison measures. The new rules will allow judges to impose restrictions inside prison, such as removing privileges or limiting visits.

This means refusal may bring consequences both through the courts and within prison. The government says offenders should not be able to choose when they face justice. However, the Ministry of Justice acknowledges that even these combined powers cannot guarantee attendance at the hearing.

The new sanctions may affect more than the offender. Removing privileges, social visits, or regular visiting access can reduce contact between prisoners and their families. This matters because families may rely on prison visits to preserve relationships during imprisonment.

Pia Sinha of the Prison Reform Trust specifically warned about children and other relatives. A prisoner could lose social visits for 27 days or have visits limited to once every four weeks for 84 days. Those restrictions could make it harder for children to maintain contact, even though they played no part in the offence.

The rules will exempt visits from prisoners’ children. That exception is intended to maintain family ties and protect the child’s best interests. Ministers still face questions about whether the sanctions will actually persuade offenders to attend sentencing hearings.

The rules recognise a difference for younger offenders aged 18 to 20. They can have privileges removed for up to 21 days or be confined to their cells for up to 10 days. These limits are shorter than the maximum sanctions described for other offenders.

For example, an offender aged 19 could lose prison privileges for three weeks after refusing to attend sentencing. Another could face cell confinement for up to 10 days. The article does not give separate younger-offender limits for every visit restriction, but it specifically identifies the privilege and confinement periods.

Visits from prisoners’ children are exempt from the sanctions. The Ministry of Justice says this is to help maintain family ties and protect the child’s best interests. The exemption means children should not lose contact simply because an offender refused to attend court.

Contempt of court is a legal finding that someone has disobeyed a court order or interfered with the court’s authority. In this case, attendance at sentencing is required by law. Refusing to appear can therefore be treated as defying the court.

The mechanism is straightforward. The court requires the offender to attend, and the offender refuses. Existing laws then allow punishment for contempt, including a fine or up to two additional years in prison. The new rules add prison sanctions such as lost privileges, cell confinement, and restricted visits.

This power matters because a court order would have little force if people could ignore it without consequences. The government says refusal insults victims and their families. The Ministry of Justice says the expanded sanctions strengthen punishment, while acknowledging that they cannot guarantee an offender will attend.