What happens when a Defendant doesn't attend?

When a Defendant is on bail, the solution is relatively simple, a warrant will be issued for the Defendant and constables will be asked to use their efforts to arrest the Defendant and bring them to Court.

However, where a Defendant is remanded in custody, the powers of the Court are much more limited. There is no power, save for issuing a summons which cannot be enforced against a Defendant, to require the Defendant to attend Court from custody. This is why we find situations such as with Lucy Letby and Thomas Cushman where they simply refuse to attend for their sentencing hearing.

It has been suggested that there is a 2 year period of imprisonment that could be imposed where a Defendant fails to attend. It is not clear where this originates from, it is likely due to the maximum sentence for contempt of court being 2 years. It would be extremely difficult to find that a Defendant failing to attend a sentencing hearing amounts to contempt, it would be surprising if such a measure were taken.

In respect of Lucy Letby, it is difficult to see what powers the Court could use to ensure her attendance short of physically dragging her into the court-room, that is unlikely to achieve anything in the long term. The only motivation where someone is going to receive a whole life order is to threaten to take away prison privileges. In reality, where a Court is dealing with a sentencing hearing, they will simply proceed in the Defendant's absence.

However, if this were a trial, the Court will not simply proceed - they will have to apply a rigorous test. The test is set out in R v Jones [1999] UKHL. This is whether or not the Defendant has voluntarily absented themselves. The Court will have to be satisfied that they have, prior to deciding to proceed in the absence of the Defendant.