Court of appeal - and new evidence...

stikywikit

If a decision is taken to appeal in a higher court, will the court accept the addition of new information that may have come to light in the interim period?....OR...does the court have to examine the decision of the previous court ruling exclusively based on the points of reference made originally?

What degree of difficulty could one expect in having additional evidence accepted?

johnnyskeleton

stikywikit wrote: »

If a decision is taken to appeal in a higher court, will the court accept the addition of new information that may have come to light in the interim period?....OR...does the court have to examine the decision of the previous court ruling exclusively based on the points of reference made originally?

What degree of difficulty could one expect in having additional evidence accepted?

It depends on the type of appeal allowed. Generally if it is a full appeal it is a complete re run of the evidence. If it is an appeal on a point of law there is no new evidence without the leave of the court. In the latter, where new evidence is called it is for the purpose of getting the appeal court to agree to a new hearing in the first instance court rather than to sway the opinion of the appeal court, so the standard needed to succeed on this is fairly high. In criminal cases the evidence must not only have not been called in the first trial, but it must be evidence that was not available or its existence was not reasonably within the knowledge of the accused and his lawyers.

ResearchWill

A recent example of new evidence in a SC appeal, was in the Bailey case the relevant bit from the CJ's decision,

9. On the 13th January, 2012, the appellant brought a motion to this Court seeking, inter alia, liberty to adduce new evidence in the proceedings. This new evidence was referred to as:-
(a) disclosure material as set out in the letter from the DPP to the solicitors for the appellant (including enclosures) dated the 4th November, 2011; and
(b) disclosure material as set out in the letter from the Mutual Assistance Division of the Department of Justice (including enclosures) to the solicitors for the appellant dated the 9th November, 2011.

10. The Court granted the application on the 13th January, 2012, and indicated that it would give its reasons at a later date.
11. The new evidence was advanced as being material and especially relevant to the fourth issue.

12. The appeal commenced before the Court on the 16th January, 2012. On the 18th January, 2012, Mr. Barron S.C., counsel for the Minister for Justice and Equality, requested the Court to decide the first three points of law which had been argued at that time, before considering the fourth issue. This application was made after a new document from the French authorities was before the Court on the 17th January, 2012, with the English translation proffered on the 18th January, 2012. Mr. Giblin, S.C., counsel for the appellant, referred to the distress of the appellant and his family during these proceedings, and stated that it was a pity that the new document from the French authorities had not been before the High Court. He stated that his instructions were not to object to the Court dealing with the three legal issues at this stage. He stated that his client accepted that this would be best.

13. Consequently, the Court reserved judgment on the first three issues raised in this appeal, and adjourned the balance of the appeal.

14. I will address the three issues in the order in which they were argued before the Court. Thus, the first issue arises on the meaning and application of s. 44 of the Act of 2003

From http://courts.ie/judgments.nsf/f69fbd31c73dda2580256cd400020877/b14c1eff7b4d5d4e802579b4004684d7?OpenDocument

The court decided to decided the first 3 points first and only if necessary allow the new evidence.