Murderers like Lucy Letby should be forced to appear in court to witness the impact of their crimes

The events at Manchester Crown Court on Monday morning are quite possibly the most harrowing ever to have occurred in a UK courtroom. News reporters have spoken of having to type through tears.

The families of Lucy Letby’s victims read personal statements, describing the unimaginable horror and misery she inflicted on them. And not just on them. In his sentencing remarks, Mr Justice Goss was also unsparing about the horror and misery she inflicted on her victims, the babies who suffered “acute pain” while fighting to stay alive.

There is, understandably, considerable public outcry that Letby was not there herself. She is certainly not the first despicable person to refuse to face up to the magnitude of her crimes. The murderer of nine-year-old Olivia Pratt Korbel, Thomas Cashman, also refused to attend his sentencing.

Letby was not forced to attend her own sentencing in person, to face her victims and listen to the consequences of her actions. Both the justice secretary and the prime minister have indicated they believe the law needs to change, so that convicted criminals can be forced to attend sentencings in person.

Such a law would not be altogether easy. Defendants, even the most detestable of them, tend to cooperate with trials. If they plead not guilty, as most of them do, they will face cross-examination, in which they are motivated to cooperate through sheer self-interest.

Once a conviction has been reached, however, such motivation tends to disappear. Dragging a rapist or a murderer into a courtroom by force is not straightforward. It is rather different than dragging them to a cell and locking the door.

Criminal barristers have already pointed out that, even if shackled and handcuffed and all but thrown in the dock, it is nevertheless almost impossible to compel them to behave properly. They would still be able to shout abuse at families in high states of distress, or at the judge.

There are alternative options. The justice secretary Robert Buckland has said it should be possible to play either an audio or video feed of proceedings into the convicted criminal’s cell. There would still be very little that could be done to prevent them closing their eyes or shouting over the top of the audio so that they could not hear it.

(During Oscar Pistorius’s murder trial, he regularly placed his head on the desk in front of him and covered his ears, so he did not have to see or hear what he had done.)

But the families would not need to know. There would be no need to also stream a video feed of Letby, or whomever else’s cell, into the courtroom. It would be sufficient for families to know that the guilty party was being forced to listen.

Civilised societies are heavily invested in civilised justice. Court proceedings matter.

The judge’s remarks in Letby’s sentencing are the most high-profile to have been broadcast on television since it was made legal to do so just over a year ago. That his remarks, in which he referred to Letby as “you”, throughout, were heard by millions of people, but not by Letby herself, has understandably struck many people as wrong.

The trial lasted ten months. Letby gave evidence herself for several weeks. That, having been convicted, she has the power to choose not to listen to what her victims’ families have to say, does not feel like natural justice.

If she, and others like her, cannot physically be compelled to sit in a courtroom and behave properly, then the justice secretary is correct to say they should be forced to listen. The law should be changed, and promptly.