John Hunt and his daughter Amy have faced an unimaginable tragedy: the brutal murder of their beloved family members. John’s wife, Carol, and their two daughters, Louise and Hannah, were taken from them in a horrific crime that left a deep scar on their lives. Louise’s ex-boyfriend, Kyle Clifford, committed unspeakable acts of violence, raping and shooting her with a crossbow after he had stabbed Carol to death. The horror continued when he shot Hannah upon her return home. This week, however, John and Amy experienced yet another loss: the chance to confront Clifford directly and convey the devastating impact of his actions.
In his victim impact statement, read in court, John expressed his anguish and fury, stating, “The screams of hell, Kyle. I can hear them faintly now. They’re going to roll the red carpet out for you. At that point, when the person you could have been meets the person you are, you will realize your miserable fate will last for eternity.” These powerful words from John, a BBC racing correspondent, should have struck a chord with Clifford, penetrating the self-pitying barrier he has built around himself. If only he had been compelled to listen.
Sadly, Clifford is just one in a growing trend of criminals who refuse to appear in court for their sentencing, avoiding the painful testimony from the loved ones of their victims. Notable cases include Lucy Letby, Thomas Cashman—the murderer of young Olivia Pratt-Korbel—and Jordan McSweeney, who took the life of student Zara Aleena. This troubling trend spans a spectrum of crimes, both severe and lesser in nature.
As John Hunt poignantly noted in his statement, “I so wished to deliver these words eye to eye, Kyle.” He likely felt it was his solemn duty to convey the profound damage Clifford has inflicted on his family and highlight the deep-seated flaws in his character that led to such violence. It is a tragedy that Clifford was not physically brought into the courtroom to face the consequences of his actions.
In an ideal scenario, Clifford should have been forcibly brought to court, perhaps even by the strongest prison guards, to endure the full weight of the truth expressed by John Hunt. We cannot allow a “take it or leave it” approach to justice. The disturbing trend of criminals skipping their sentencing has arisen because many have witnessed others evade the courtroom experience, leading them to believe they can do the same.
This behavior is often dismissed as “cowardly.” While it is indeed cowardice, do we truly believe that such a characterization will affect a multiple murderer? Kyle Clifford had already attempted to escape accountability by inflicting self-harm with a crossbow, resulting in his paralysis. His absence from the courtroom is more than just cowardice; it serves as a further means of exercising control and inflicting additional pain on the victims’ families. Such behavior should be met with appropriate consequences.
Many killers, like Kyle Clifford, are often driven by a need for control. To achieve true justice, it is imperative that their power is stripped away, forcing them to confront the consequences of their actions, even if that requires physical intervention.
Why, then, are more politicians and members of the criminal justice system not vocally advocating for this? Why is there a reluctance to ensure that individuals like Clifford face the gravity of their fate? If my vivid suggestions for handling someone like Clifford seem a bit graphic, one must ask: why does that disturb you? Do terms like “bleeding fingernails” and “shackled” seem too harsh for the pages of the media? Are you thinking, “It’s not acceptable, but what can we realistically do? We wouldn’t want to upset families in court”? Or perhaps you find the entire notion outrageous?
During the proceedings, Mr. Justice Joel Bennathan and officials from HMP Belmarsh contemplated using restraints to bring Clifford into court, only to decide against it. The judge remarked, “I’ve declined on the basis that the idea of a man in a wheelchair being put in restraints and potentially disrupting these proceedings is simply not appropriate.” He then added, “If the defendant simply lacks the courage to face today, then so be it.” But this should not be the case.
It appears that significant portions of our society, including lawmakers, the justice system, and the media, have lost their sense of moral outrage. Emotional responses to grave injustices are often overshadowed by tepid rational arguments. This is not to say that we cannot distinguish right from wrong; rather, we seem to have lost the visceral anger that should accompany such clear violations of morality. This emotional disconnect is being exploited by radical elements.
Morality tales have existed since the dawn of humanity, shaping social behaviors and norms. However, in our current climate, the moral arguments that resonate with the mainstream are too often muted by those with wealth and influence. Jonathan Haidt discusses this in his 2012 book, A Righteous Mind, highlighting the growing divide in moral perspectives between conservatives and liberals. Over the past decade, this divide has only widened, with the masses feeling a sense of moral outrage while an elite few remain detached.
While it is true that morality has been historically used to oppress and control, I am not advocating for a return to a society that polices personal lives. However, in a time when social cohesion is more vital than ever, it is crucial that our shared morality be both visible and impactful.
Alison Phillips served as editor of the Daily Mirror from 2018 to 2024 and was awarded Columnist of the Year at the 2018 National Press Awards.
