Appealing a conviction

ohnonotgmail

Can anybody clarify what an appeal hearing for a conviction actually entails? It is my understanding, based on UK practice, that it only looks at deficencies in the conduct of the trial and it is not a reexamination of the facts of the case. I refer specifically to appeals against conviction not appeals against sentence. If anybody could shed some light on this it would be appreciated as my google-fu is failing me this morning.

GM228

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Can anybody clarify what an appeal hearing for a conviction actually entails? It is my understanding, based on UK practice, that it only looks at deficencies in the conduct of the trial and it is not a reexamination of the facts of the case. I refer specifically to appeals against conviction not appeals against sentence. If anybody could shed some light on this it would be appreciated as my google-fu is failing me this morning.

That is a JR (judicial review) you are thinking of which does not look at the merits of the case, just the applicable laws, an appeal will look at all relevant facts including any evidence tendered (or even new evidence available), the law applicable, legal principles, errors in law etc.

ohnonotgmail

So if they look at the facts of the case again how is that different to a retrial?

GM228

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So if they look at the facts of the case again how is that different to a retrial?

An appeal is trying to set aside/quash the original conviction, depending on the argument raised certain facts may be looked at again, and some may not need to be looked at again or indeed none may be looked at again, it very much depends on the reason for appeal (there is no guarantees, you are still guilty of the offence unless and until quashed, or a retrial is ordsred). A retrial however is the entire case starting again from scratch so you once again benefit from the presumption of innocence so in the subsequent trial all facts must be presented again.

coylemj

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Can anybody clarify what an appeal hearing for a conviction actually entails?

It depends. Which court handed down the conviction - District Court or was it a jury trial?

ohnonotgmail

coylemj wrote: »

It depends. Which court handed down the conviction - District Court or was it a jury trial?

central criminal court. I really should have mentioned that in the OP.

randomrb

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

central criminal court. I really should have mentioned that in the OP.

I could be wrong but as far as I know you can't appeal points of fact from the CCC unless there is new information. An appeal would be on a point of law or would be to review the sentence given

ohnonotgmail

randomrb wrote: »

I could be wrong but as far as I know you can't appeal points of fact from the CCC unless there is new information. An appeal would be on a point of law or would be to review the sentence given

that is my understanding as well. I'm just looking to get that confirmed by the legal types.

GM228

randomrb wrote: »

I could be wrong but as far as I know you can't appeal points of fact from the CCC unless there is new information. An appeal would be on a point of law or would be to review the sentence given

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is my understanding as well. I'm just looking to get that confirmed by the legal types.

That is the general rule held since the Supreme Court Hay vs O’Grady [1992] 1 I.R. 210 case, however later case law has held differently in certain circumstances, this was held in the Supreme Court Doyle vs Banville [2012] IESC 25 case, the recent Lynch vs Cooney & Ors [2016] IECA 1 Court of Appeal case is the latest case I can think of which deals with when facts can be revisited:-

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2016/CA1.html

Cooney & Ors wrote:

While it is sometimes perceived that, post Hay v. O’Grady, a trial judge’s findings of fact is, to all intents and purposes, more or less inviolable, the Supreme Court’s decision in Doyle v. Banville [2012] IESC 25 illustrates that this is not so

Potential-Monke

From what I understand, the Court of Appeal (set up in 2014) can hear appeals from the CCC, but only on either a: the severity of a sentence, or b: an alleged miscarriage of justice: https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts_system/court_of_appeal.html

hullaballoo

Only the High Court has full original jurisdiction. The Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court are appellate courts and do not hear evidence afresh. They consider the evidence as it was heard in the "lower" court and analyse the findings of fact or holdings of law for errors.

If you are appealing to an appellate court, your case will not be opened again in full there.

Otoh, if you are appealing to the High Court (or to the Circuit Court) in a civil case, you get the benefit of a full (de novo) rehearing of all the evidence and a fresh decision.

My understanding is that the procedure is effectively the same now whether it's a civil or criminal matter. I don't practice in the criminal law area and never have so I could be completely wrong but that's how I understand the situation.

Edit: as below, criminal appeals go from DC->Circuit Criminal Court on a de novo basis. Appeals from the Circuit Criminal Court and Central Criminal Court go to the Court of Appeal on specific matters of law (sentence and miscarriage of justice).

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

Only the High Court has full original jurisdiction. The Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court are appellate courts and do not hear evidence afresh. They consider the evidence as it was heard in the "lower" court and analyse the findings of fact or holdings of law for errors.

If you are appealing to an appellate court, your case will not be opened again in full there.

Otoh, if you are appealing to the High Court (or to the Circuit Court), you get the benefit of a full (de novo) rehearing of all the evidence and a fresh decision.

My understanding is that the procedure is effectively the same now whether it's a civil or criminal matter. I don't practice in the criminal law area and never have so I could be completely wrong but that's how I understand the situation.

Only (criminal) appeals from the DC to CC are on a de novo basis if the appeal is against conviction and sentence, otherwise it is transcript based.

GM228

Potential-Monke wrote: »

From what I understand, the Court of Appeal (set up in 2014) can hear appeals from the CCC, but only on either a: the severity of a sentence, or b: an alleged miscarriage of justice: https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts_system/court_of_appeal.html

The CA can hear appeals of conviction from the CCC, it can for example substitute verdicts or quash them altogether, it is not limited to just severity of sentence or a miscarriage of justice.

hullaballoo

GM228 wrote: »

Only (criminal) appeals from the DC to CC are on a de novo basis if the appeal is against conviction and sentence, otherwise it is transcript based.

Sorry, yes, this is correct. Appeals from the Circuit Criminal Court now go to the CA also.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

Sorry, yes, this is correct. Appeals from the Circuit Criminal Court now go to the CA also.

And on that point for the benefit of the OP we should note this relates to ordinary appeals from the CC.

Appeals from the DC to the CC are final and can't go further than the CC unless on a point of law.