18. Criminal and civil appeals

2020 ◽  
pp. 657-682
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley ◽  
Birju Kotecha
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Appeal Court ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Appeals Process

This chapter introduces readers to the appeals process in criminal and civil cases. It explores the grounds upon which appeals may be based in criminal cases, including the concepts of ‘fresh evidence’ and ‘lurking doubt’ and considers appeals by way of case stated, applications for judicial review of decisions, and Attorney General’s references. If a criminal appeal has been dismissed, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which was set up to examine potential miscarriages of justice, may refer a case back to the appeal court in certain circumstances. The chapter highlights some of the criticisms of the CCRC’s role and effectiveness. The avenues of appeal in civil cases are also discussed, including leapfrog appeals and second appeals.

16. Criminal and civil appeals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Appeal Court ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Appeals Process

This chapter introduces readers to the appeals process in criminal and civil cases. It explores the grounds upon which appeals may be based in criminal cases, including the concepts of ‘fresh evidence’ and ‘lurking doubt’. If a criminal appeal has been dismissed, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which was set up to examine potential miscarriages of justice, may refer a case back to the appeal court in certain circumstances. The chapter highlights some of the criticisms of the CCRC’s role and effectiveness. The avenues of appeal in civil cases are also discussed.

scholarly journals Learning by experience on the Innocence Project in London: the employer/employee environment

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 173
Author(s):  
Louise Hewitt
Keyword(s):  
Law Students ◽  
Clinical Learning ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
Pro Bono ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Appeals Process ◽  
Innocence Project ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Court Of Appeal

<p>The Innocence Project London is a <em>pro bono</em> project dedicated to investigating wrongful convictions in the context of individuals who claim actual innocence i.e. they did not commit the crime for which they have been convicted. Law students undertake work on the cases of convicted individuals who have maintained their innocence but have exhausted the criminal appeals process. The only avenue available to these individuals is to make an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which was set up to investigate the cases of people who believe they have been wrongfully convicted. The CCRC has the power to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal but requires new evidence or a new legal argument not identified at the time of the trial, which might have changed the whole outcome of the trial had the jury had been given a chance to consider it.</p><p>Whilst the notion of innocence projects has been much debated in literature the purpose of this paper is to present the pedagogy of the Innocence Project London and the meaningful learning opportunity it provides to students. The pedagogy combines experiential learning with elements of work based learning to create an employer/ employee environment. Law students are ‘employed’ to work on the Project where the employment process starts with a two-stage application. The clinical learning model on an innocence project is distinct from the traditional clinic approach, in that students start work at the end of a case rather than at the beginning. The problem-solving therefore is developed in the context of critical judgement based on what happened when the case was decided in court as opposed to how the case should be presented in court. The learning for the students has been significant.</p>

Verification of court decisions in criminal cases: history and modernity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandr Panokin
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Soviet System ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Subsequent Transformation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Post Soviet Period

The paper analyzes the historical retrospective and a comparative study of the verification of court decisions in criminal cases. The author traces the emergence of the idea of checking court decisions and the first experiments of its implementation, the transition from the "court with a judge" to the "audit" procedure for monitoring court decisions, and then to the consideration of complaints against court decisions as a continuation of the dispute between the parties and the formation of methods and procedures for reviewing criminal cases, depending on the subject of appeal. The features of the Romano-German and English models of judicial review are highlighted. Special attention is paid to the Soviet system of verification of sentences, rulings and definitions as the basis of the socialist model of judicial review and its subsequent transformation in Russia in the post-Soviet period. The monograph is intended for researchers, teachers, undergraduate, specialist, master's, postgraduate and doctoral students, as well as practicing lawyers.

scholarly journals Reframing Black Southerners’ Experiences in the Courts, 1865–1950

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 1113-1140
Author(s):  
Melissa Milewski
Keyword(s):  
Black Men ◽  
Jim Crow ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Southern State ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Black Defendants

In civil cases that took place in southern courts from the end of the Civil War to the mid-twentieth century, black men and women frequently chose to bring litigation and then negotiated the white-dominated legal system to shape their cases and assert rights. In some ways, these civil cases were diametrically opposite from the criminal cases of black defendants who did not choose to enter a courtroom and often received unequal justice. However, this article draws on almost 2,000 cases involving black litigants in eight state supreme courts across the South between 1865 to 1950 to argue that in both civil and criminal cases African Americans were at times shaping their cases and fighting for their rights, as well as obtaining decisions that aligned with the interests of white elites. Southern state courts during the era of Jim Crow were thus spaces for negotiating for rights and sites of white domination, in both criminal and civil cases.

scholarly journals Mengukur Konstitusionalitas Peninjauan Kembali (PK) Kedua dalam Perkara Perdata

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 452-474
Author(s):  
Priyo Handoko
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Constitutional Analysis

The study aims to provide a constitutional analysis of judicial review (PK) in civil cases for more than once. The research-based is the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 108 / PUU-XIV / 2016 and No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013 in which the two judgments provide a different classification between criminal and civil cases. The method used in this research is a normative juridical with a conceptual, legislation, and case approach. The results of the study assert that: first, the opportunity for judicial review (PK) more than once in a criminal case is an effort to uphold justice substantively by the Constitutional Court. Whereas the restriction of judicial review (PK) only once in civil cases is intended to guarantee legal certainty. Secondly, there is rational inconsistency in the arguments of the Constitutional Court which is indicated in Decision No. 108 / PUU-XIV / 2016 and No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013. Both criminal and civil cases must seek to establish and maintain substantial justice, especially since there is a due process of law principle that requires that everyone can get the same opportunity before the law.

4. The burden and standard of proof

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Glover
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Civil Cases

This first part of the chapter discusses the concept of burden of proof, covering the legal or persuasive burden of proof; the evidential burden; the effect of presumptions on the burden of proof; the legal burden of proof in civil cases; the evidential burden in civil cases; the burden of proof in criminal cases; defence burdens of proof before Lambert; defence burdens of proof after Lambert; and the burden of proof of secondary facts. The second part of the chapter discusses the standard of proof, covering standard of proof required of prosecution in criminal cases; standard of proof required of defence; standard of proof of secondary facts; the standard of proof in civil cases; and the standard of proof in matrimonial and family cases.

9. Opinion evidence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
The Uk

This chapter, which focuses on opinion evidence in criminal and civil cases in the UK, explains the rule on the admissibility of opinion, including expert opinion, as well as notice and disclosure in criminal cases under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014. The criteria for the admissibility of expert evidence, the responsibilities of expert witnesses, and the approach of the courts to new areas of expertise are examined in detail. It also considers the presentation of expert evidence, including the use of court-appointed experts, in civil cases under the Civil Procedure Rules, and, finally, examines the ultimate issue rule, which has been abolished by section 33(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1972.

18. Remedies and Appeals

2021 ◽  
pp. 640-668
Author(s):  
Alisdair A. Gillespie ◽  
Siobhan Weare
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Complicated Structure ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Civil Courts ◽  
Usual Rule

This chapter discusses the remedies that can be sought from the civil courts and how an appeal is made against a decision. It covers interim and final remedies; route of appeals; leave; the hearing; appeals to the Supreme Court; and examples of appeals. There are many different types of remedies that a court can award to a successful litigant. The most common form of remedy is that which is known as ‘damages’. Appeals in the civil courts follow a slightly more complicated structure than in criminal cases. In order to appeal in the civil cases it is usually necessary to seek permission before proceeding with a civil appeal. Save where it is a final decision in a multi-track case, the usual rule is that the appeal will be heard by the next most senior judge.

I. International Law and Nuclear Weapons in Scottish Courts

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-176
Author(s):  
Stephen C. Neff
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
High Court ◽  
Appeal Court

Britain's Trident nuclear missile programme has long been politically controversial. In 1999, the controversy entered the judicial arena in Scotland, in two cases involving ‘direct action’ against Trident installations by anti-nuclear activists. In both cases, the actions were intended not as protests against Britain's nuclear-weapons policy, but rather as actual operations to disable the weapons themselves. The acts were, in other words, in the nature of acts of sabotage. Both incidents led to criminal prosecutions. In both cases, the accused parties sought to use international law as a defence. In both cases, the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary—the highest court for criminal cases in Scotland—rejected the defence. In the process, however, the Appeal Court had occasion to expound upon some controversial points regarding nuclear weapons. Each of these cases will be discussed in turn.

The Bench, the Bar, and Crown Cases Reserved

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 289-296
Author(s):  
Allyson N. May
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Sustained Attention ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Easy Task ◽  
Early Twentieth Century ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Judicial Procedure

The three articles published in this forum address an aspect of judicial procedure which has, understandably, been shrouded in mystery. Until 1848, the process of judicial review of Crown cases remained informal and the records of that review are terse and elliptical. Teasing out their meaning and their implications for lawmaking is thus no easy task. And while the process was formalized and made public with the creation of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved (CCCR) in 1848, the activities of this court have not attracted sustained attention from legal historians. These articles are therefore to be commended for advancing our understanding of the operation of judicial review in criminal cases prior to the establishment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the early twentieth century.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document