Olivia’s Law: compelling attendance at sentencing for defendants

Olivia’s Law gives courts new powers to compel attendance for convicted defendants detained in custody while awaiting sentencing by the Crown Court where they refuse, or are expected to refuse, to attend voluntarily. While from a victim’s rights perspective, the legislation has received considerable support, it also raises important legal and operational questions, particularly in relation to proportionality, fairness and the practical use of force.

The catalyst for the legislative reform was the tragic murder of nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel and the public concern after her killer refused to attend his sentencing hearing. The law received Royal Assent in April 2026 and is contained in Section 1 of the Victims and Courts Act 2026.

Under the new provisions, courts may now:

• Authorise court staff to use reasonable and proportional force to secure attendance where a defendant deliberately refuses to attend;

• Impose longer sentences on defendants who refuse to comply; or

• Impose prison disciplinary sanctions including limiting recreational time and visitation rights.

Prior to the reform, courts strongly preferred defendants to attend sentencing, but proceedings could still continue in their voluntary absence, provided that the hearing remained fair. Although relatively uncommon overall, refusals to attend sentencing have arisen in a number of serious and high-profile cases.

Defendants on bail who fail to attend may already be arrested and brought before the court and in some circumstances, prisoners could already be physically escorted within custodial and court settings. Olivia’s Law now places the use of reasonable and proportionate force to secure attendance at sentencing on a clear statutory footing and links it to specific powers and consequences where defendants refuse to comply.

The Government has framed the legislation around dignity, accountability and public confidence in the justice system, aiming to ensure that convicted offenders cannot publicly avoid the consequences of their actions. Olivia’s Law is not offence specific. The application of the law depends on the offender’s non-attendance or refusal to attend the sentence proceedings and it is not limited to a prescribed list of offences or categories of cases.

For victims and families, refusal to attend sentencing could feel like a final act of indifference, particularly where victim statements are not heard directly be the defendant. Sentencing hearings are frequently viewed as the moment at which “justice is served”, with the courts publicly recognising harm and issuing criticism. In that context, the change is symbolically significant and addresses a perceived gap in accountability.

The most important change introduced by Olivia’s Law is that attendance at sentencing has shifted from a procedural expectation to a legally enforceable obligation. The central difficulty is that attendance is now achieved through coercion. While the reform strengthens the authority of the court, it may also introduce a range of practical and legal complications.

One of the most immediate questions concerns what amounts to “reasonable and proportionate” force in practice. Many defendants who refuse to attend sentencing are not merely passive objectors, but can be volatile, mentally unwell, ideologically motivated, traumatised or actively seeking confrontation. Physical extraction from cells and transportation into courtrooms may therefore increase the risk of violence towards prison and court staff, cause disruption to proceedings or lead to verbal abuse to victims or families. While courts may gain authority over attendance, in practice, they may in some cases be losing control over the courtroom itself.

The issue is also likely to become fertile ground for legal challenge. Questions surrounding proportionality, excessive force and procedural fairness may arise, particularly where vulnerable offenders are concerned. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights may also become relevant where the use of force undermines a defendant’s ability to participate effectively or with dignity in the proceedings. A defendant should be treated justly, given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and present their case without intimidation or undue disadvantage.

The legislation assumes, at least in part, that additional sanctions will encourage compliance, even though there has long been debate within criminal justice research about how effective punishment alone is, as a behavioural deterrent.

Where defendants are already serving whole life orders or lengthy sentences, further punishment may in some cases be largely symbolic rather than practically significant and may even reinforce anti-authority behaviour. A defendant determined to reject the legitimacy of the process may interpret compelled attendance not as accountability, but further confirmation of institutional hostility.

Another important issue is the distinction between physical attendance and genuine participation. For victims and families, compelled attendance may still matter because it avoids an empty dock, but it is important to recognise that attendance simply cannot compel remorse, acceptance of responsibility or active participation in the proceedings.

The distinction matters because sentencing hearings are fundamentally legal proceedings, concerned with imposing lawful punishment, and should not become an exercise in interpreting perceived morality or emotional performance. Not everyone expresses emotion conventionally, and mental illness, neurodivergence or trauma may affect how defendants present in court.

Olivia’s Law reflects a broader shift in criminal justice policy toward visibility, accountability and a more victim-centred process. There is a powerful public argument that defendants convicted of serious offences should ordinarily be present when sentence is passed, particularly where victims and families wish to address the court directly.

At the same time, the legislation also illustrates the limits of legal compulsion, and how the use of force and sanctions may create new operational and legal difficulties for prisons and courts. The real test for Olivia’s Law may therefore be whether the justice system can compel attendance without compromising the fairness and authority it seeks to uphold.

Diana Birsan is a legal assistant in the criminal law team, advising clients on a range of criminal litigation matters including police station investigations, Magistrates' Court and Crown Court matters. Martin Rackstraw is a partner in the criminal law team, representing clients facing serious allegations such as homicide, sexual allegations, terrorism and drug cases.