United Kingdom

I don't think they're given a choice exactly. But if they refuse to attend, current policy is not to force them.

I am not big on the heavy hand of the state but I do think that where prison is inevitable and lives have been taken or irreparably damaged, it should be compulsory. It's not like they're volunteering to go to prison either.

The reason I think it should be required is because it is (a partial form of) restorative justice and because it's an element of any kind of rehabilitation (to the extent that rehabilitation is possible after crimes of this nature).

Anyways, moot point. The government has an easy win here given the publicity around this case and another high profile one in Liverpool recently. Unless there is a good reason I can't think of, policy will likely change for PR points.

Ok I don't really have an opinion on this particular thing, but in general - if the US forces people to do something and the UK doesn't, I'm willing to give UK the benefit of the doubt.

And more in general, if in doubt, then giving people more freedom is not a bad thing. It never happens these days though - citizen rights keep being constantly eroded everywhere, so it may be worth fighting even for little things like this to keep the idea in mind.

If I had to guess, I'd say until the sentence has been passed the defendant's still officially either in custody or on bail, and therefore not under obligation to be moved around at the behest of others, lest they were to be given a non-custodial sentence (obvs not gonna happen in this case, but everyone must be treat the same regardless).

And I guess they therefore have to treat being in custody (a 'necessary evil' for flight risks or public safety) the same as being on bail, as the defendants must be treat as equally as possible pre-sentencing.

That being said, I'd think a judge would look disfavourably upon a no-show, and could affect the sentencing accordingly. Obviously in this case it was always likely to be a whole life tariff anyway, so Letby had nothing to lose.

Edit: OK I've actually now read the article (go me, lol) and the sentiment in it seems similar.

It seems like it would be difficult to stop a defendant, having been physically forced into the dock, from disrupting proceedings.

The defendant is going to be punished. Forcing them to attend the sentencing, especially in cases like this, would not be in their interest at all, only in the interest of punishment and the victims families would this be a benefit. I'm not saying that I agree with that at all, but it's a rational argument against forcing them to attend.