Judges given new powers to punish criminals who skip sentencing
Judges in England and Wales can impose cell confinement, loss of privileges and visit restrictions on offenders who refuse to attend sentencing, with changes due next year.
The Full Story
A plain summary built from the channels that reported this story.
Judges in England and Wales are to get new powers to punish criminals who refuse to attend their sentencing hearings. The measures were laid before Parliament and are expected to come into force next year. They are aimed at killers and other serious offenders who stay in their cells rather than face the court, the victims and the families.
Under the changes, Crown Court judges will be able to confine prisoners to their cells for up to three weeks, remove prison privileges for up to 84 days and restrict or block social visits. In some cases, visits could be limited further to once every four weeks for 84 days. Younger offenders will face slightly less severe restrictions. Judges will have discretion, and the sanctions are expected to be used mainly in serious cases such as murder or manslaughter.
The powers build on an existing law introduced in April, sometimes referred to as Olivia's Law. That law allowed judges to order defendants into the dock and to add up to two years to a sentence, or impose a fine, for refusing to attend. Ministers concluded that this was not enough of a deterrent for offenders already facing decades behind bars or life sentences.
The case of Zara Aleena, who was sexually assaulted and murdered as she walked home from a night out in 2022, was central to the campaign. Her killer, Jordan McSweeney, refused to leave his cell for his sentencing. Her family said the refusal added to their grief and left the justice process incomplete. Her aunt, Farah Naz, welcomed the new sanctions and said immediate punishments were more likely to affect the quality of life of an offender already serving a life sentence.
Olivia Pratt-Korbel's family also campaigned for change after her killer, Thomas Cashman, refused to come into court for sentencing. The nine-year-old was shot dead at her home in Liverpool in 2022. Her mother, Cheryl Korbel, said she felt as if she had been punched in the stomach and described the audacity of the refusal. The family welcomed the restrictions but said they had taken too long and did not go far enough. They said it was too late for them but that no other family should have to suffer in the same way.
Other high-profile no-shows were cited, including Kyle Clifford, who killed three members of the Hunt family, and Lucy Letby, who refused to attend for her sentencing. Jan Mustafa's family also spoke about the killer Zahid Younis, who was jailed for a minimum of 38 years but did not turn up to hear his sentence. Her cousin, Aisha, said sanctions were not enough and that she would have wanted him forcibly dragged into the dock.
The government said the changes would ensure that criminals cannot pick and choose when they face justice. Ministers argued that the justice system had been weighted towards perpetrators rather than victims. The Conservatives called the measures only a small step in the right direction. A charity warned that the first weeks in custody are a period of increased risk for self-harm and self-inflicted death, so sanctions imposed at that stage need to be handled with care.
The changes are not yet in force. Campaigners who have waited years for the law to change say the implementation period means further delay, while families who have already been through the courts say the new punishments cannot undo what they have suffered.
On screen
Stills are sampled automatically at 60-second intervals. Where shown, the still is the nearest available frame from the relevant broadcast segment and is included to show what was on screen during that part of the broadcast. A still may not correspond to the exact second of a quoted phrase.
Key Claims
Claims reported during this story's coverage, grouped by how many channels reported each one. Select a dot to see the source excerpt.
| Claim |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Widely reported · 5 or more of 6 channels | ||||||
| Judges in England and Wales are gaining new powers to punish offenders who refuse to appear for sentencing, with sanctions including cell confinement for up to three weeks, loss of prison privileges for almost three months, and restrictions on social visits. | ||||||
| Reported by a few · 2–4 channels | ||||||
| An earlier law in April already allowed judges to add up to two years to sentences or impose a fine for non-attendance, but the government said this did not deter offenders already facing long sentences. | Not reported by Channel 5 | Reported by BBC One | Not reported by Channel 4 | |||
| The measures were presented to Parliament and were due to take effect around early next year, after an implementation period. | Not reported by Channel 5 | Not reported by Channel 4 | Not reported by ITV | |||
| Only on one channel | ||||||
| The Conservatives described the measures as only a small step in the right direction. | Not reported by BBC News | Not reported by BBC One | Not reported by Channel 4 | Not reported by ITV | Not reported by Sky News | |
| The family of Olivia Pratt-Korbel welcomed the proposed measures but expressed strong disappointment at the time taken. | Not reported by Channel 5 | Not reported by BBC News | Not reported by BBC One | Not reported by Channel 4 | Not reported by Sky News | |
| The measures followed years of campaigning by families including Zara Aleena's and Olivia Pratt-Korbel's. | Not reported by Channel 5 | Not reported by BBC One | Not reported by Channel 4 | Not reported by ITV | Not reported by Sky News | |
Channel Perspectives
What each channel focused on, with key quotes.
The BBC report stuck closely to the government announcement and the campaign cases behind it. It explained the three main sanctions and the earlier law that ministers judged too weak, with testimony from Zara Aleena's family. It did not carry the later criticism from Olivia Pratt-Korbel's family or the charity warning about custody risks.
- “We did not feel that he was being held accountable.”
- “That was the point at which he should have been forced to do that so that we could feel that there's a full stop put on the justice process.”
- “The government says that the new powers will ensure that criminals should not be able to pick and choose when they face justice.”
Sky framed the story as a tougher attempt to stop serious criminals playing the justice system. Its correspondent set out the sanctions, the judges' discretion and the April law that was seen as too weak, and noted the implementation delay. It included Zara Aleena's aunt welcoming the change as a step towards accountability.
- “This is supposed to be about tougher sanctions.”
- “They don't get to pick and choose justice and they don't get to avoid turning up to their sentencing hearing and facing their victims' families.”
- “For us, it's a moment of reckoning, and it was all about accountability. And it left the justice process incomplete.”
Channel 4 gave the story a short, plain summary inside a bulletin dominated by other news. It focused on the wider powers for judges, cell confinement and blocked visits, with no case studies or political reaction. It was the least detailed treatment of the story.
- “Criminals who refuse to attend their sentencing could lose prison privileges under new rules giving wider powers to judges in England and Wales.”
- “Judges would be able to confine prisoners to cells for weeks and block them from prison visits for refusing to face their victims or their victims' families in court.”
The lunchtime bulletin used the same core report and case studies as the earlier BBC coverage. It led with the new powers and listed blocking visits, loss of privileges and longer cell confinement. It gave the government's rationale and the Aleena case but no reaction from Olivia's family beyond the general campaign reference.
- “Punishments could include blocking visits, loss of privileges, and staying locked in their cells for longer.”
- “The move follows a series of high-profile cases where killers have refused to face their victims' families.”
- “That was the point at which he should have been forced to do that so that we could feel that there's a full stop put on the justice process.”
ITV built its coverage around victims' families, especially Olivia Pratt-Korbel's relatives, who welcomed the measures but said they were too late and did not go far enough. It also gave space to the government's case, Zara Aleena's family and a charity warning about self-harm risk in early custody. The lunchtime, evening and late bulletins repeated and extended the same family-led framing.
- “I felt like I'd been punched in the stomach. It's the audacity of it. We do welcome the restrictions, but at the same time, it's the length of time that it's taken.”
- “They welcomed these proposed measures But they're extremely disappointed by how long it's taken to get to this stage”
- “The justice system has been weighted towards the perpetrators of crime than the victims of crime and today marks an important step forward”
5 News took the most critical tone, calling the no-shows the ultimate insult and giving prominence to a victim's relative who said sanctions were not enough. It listed several notorious offenders, set out the 84-day privilege and visit limits, and noted that the Conservatives called the measures only a small step. It still reported the government's claim that the system had favoured perpetrators over victims.
- “it's the ultimate insult for grieving families”
- “So sanctions are not enough.”
- “The Conservatives have called the measures only a small step in the right direction”
Broadcast Timeline
News broadcasts tracked for this story, in time order.