The report on judges being given powers to punish prisoners who refuse to attend court raises a question about why we appear to have abandoned a straightforward approach that once worked (Criminals who refuse to attend sentencing face losing prison privileges under new rules, 22 October).

When I joined the Prison Service as an officer more than 30 years ago, prisoners were not permitted to decide whether they would attend court. If they refused to go voluntarily, they could be escorted under restraint where necessary.

The result was predictable: few prisoners refused, because they knew their refusal would not prevent them from appearing.

There is a wider lesson here for the administration of justice. When noncompliance becomes a means of delaying or obstructing the system, introducing additional punishments may be less effective than ensuring that lawful instructions are carried out in the first place. Prisoners have rights, and the use of restraint must always be lawful, proportionate and justified. But those rights do not extend to exercising a veto over the judicial process.

After more than three decades, I find it difficult to understand why a principle that was once routine now appears to require a fresh solution. Sometimes, effective public administration is not about creating new sanctions but about having the resolve and resources to enforce existing rules.
Name and address supplied