There are a number of grounds for appeal in criminal cases. The appeal may be based on factual error where the defendant will claim that the court of fist instance misunderstood the facts, or believed the wrong person. Alternatively the appeal may be based on the law, where the defendant argues that the court has misunderstood what the law requires for the offence in question. It is also possible for an appeal to be based on a mixture of fact and law. An appeal may also be against a sentence served.
Criminal appeals are heard in the following courts:
-
The Crown Court hears appeals from the Magistrates Court. Appeals take the form of a complete re-trial, with witnesses, usually before a Circuit Judge, with two to four magistrates but no jury. The decision is by a majority, the judge having casting vote by voting twice if necessary. The court may change the verdict or the sentence, although it may not sentence more harshly than the magistrates could have. Only the defence may appeal, not the prosecution. No further appeal is possible on the facts, although appeal on the law is possible to the Divisional Court.
-
The Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division is one of the appeal courts in the High Court. One of its roles is to hear appeals on the law of summary cases from the magistrates and from the Crown Court.
-
The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The judges in this court are the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Justices of Appeal, and some High Court Judges. Usually three judges sit to hear an appeal, although there may be five in an important case. The court has the following jurisdiction:
- To hear appeals against conviction of indictable offences.
- To hear appeals against sentence from the Crown Court.
- To hear cases referred to it by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
- To hear appeals against a verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” or findings of unfitness to plead.
- To heal appeals against acquittals on a point of law in the Crown Court.
- To review cases referred by the Attorney-General on the grounds that the Crown Court sentence was too lenient.
-
The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. This consists of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the Lord Chancellor, and other peers who have held office such as past Lord Chancellors. Usually five Lords hear a case, although there may be seven in a controversial case which involve a point of law of exceptional public importance. The House of Lords hears appeals from the Court of Appeal in indictable cases brought either by the defence or the prosecution. It also hears appeals on points of law from the Divisional Court of Queen’s Bench in summary cases.
-
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council hears criminal appeals from the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Crown Colonies and some independent Commonwealth countries. The judges who sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are drawn from amongst those who sit on the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. Cases are likely to involve important points of law
Civil Courts
Civil courts hear cases concerning disputes between individuals. The functions of civil courts are not punitive but compensatory. Although the Magistrates Courts hear mainly criminal cases they do also have a limited civil jurisdiction. This covers a number of domestic matters such as separation and maintenance orders. The Magistrates Court also has jurisdiction over other civil matters such as recovery of council tax and charges for water, gas and electricity.
The County Courts were established in 1846 to allow civil matters to be solved quickly and cheaply. They are divided into circuits which are groups of districts. Each circuit is presided over by one or more Circuit Judges and each court has a District Judge. Cases are usually heard by a single judge unless it is a case to do with the person’s reputation when they will be tried by jury.
The County Court is a court of first instance and following the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 has concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court is most cases. Under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 any claim where the defendant does not expect to recover £15 00 or more must generally be brought in the County Court, although any personal injury claim where the claimant does not expect to recover £50 000 or more must also be started in the County Court. All other claims may be issued in either court, although if the claim is of a high value, complexity or general importance then it should be started in the High Court. Once a claim becomes defended, it will be allocated by the court to one of three tracks:
-
The small claims track for claims up to £5000, or £1000 for a personal injury claim.
-
The fast track for claims not exceeding £15 000 and which are not otherwise allocated to the small claims track.
-
The multi track for all other claims.
The High Court is a court of first instant for civil cases. It has three divisions, each with a president and a number of High Court Judges. Cases in the High Court are heard by a single judge sitting alone, although there is occasionally a jury of 12 in the Queen’s Bench Division for certain types of case. The divisions of the High Court are as follows:
-
Queens Bench Division. It hears cases in tort and contract and the recovery of land. Cases are usually heard by a single judge unless it is a case to do with the person’s reputation when they will be tried by jury. There are presently 70 judges of the Division. In London the judges are assisted by nine Masters of the Queens Bench Division, and in the provinces by District Judges. The Division includes some specialist courts such as the Admiralty Court and the Commercial Court.
-
Chancery Division. The Chancery Division is headed by the Chancellor. It hears mainly cases involving finance and property such as trusts, mortgages, administration of estates, companies, taxation and patents. It also deals with the estates of mentally incapacitated people, when it is called the Court of Protection. There are presently 19 judges of this Division, together with five Chancery Masters in London. In provinces the work is done by District Judges.
-
Family Division. There are 16 High Court Judges and 400 District Judges in London and in the provinces. Like the other Divisions it sits in London and at selected first-tier Crown Court centres. It deals with non-contentious probate, and family matters such as divorce, cases involving children and the division of matrimonial property.
Appeals in Civil Courts
-
The Divisional Courts of the High Court. The Divisional Court of the Queens Bench Division exercises supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts and tribunals, which is exercised by way of judicial review. This means it has the power to make orders in cases where a lower court or a tribunal has abused or exceeded its powers
-
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division). This court is headed by the master of the rolls. Its judges are called Lord Justices of Appeal. It hears about 1 600 appeals a year, and is one of the most important courts in the country.
-
The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. The constitution of this court is the same as for criminal cases. Its min function is to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal.
-
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This court hears criminal and civil appeals from the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Crown Colonies, and the Commonwealth.
Apart from the appeal work done by the Divisional Courts, the normal line of appeal from the County Court and the High Court on questions of fact or law is to the Court of Appeal. There is also a direct line of appeal from the High Court to the House of Lords known as the “leapfrog” procedure. This is applicable only to questions of statutory interpretation or the interpretation of a precedent of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords.
Tribunals
Tribunals are specialist bodies, usually established by Acts of Parliament, which hear disputes in particular areas of law. They are sometimes called “administrative tribunals” because the questions they decide come under a statutory scheme of administration. The term “tribunal” covers a wide variety of bodies with different functions end constitutions. Employment Tribunals, Social Security Tribunals and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority are some of the better known administrative tribunals.
-
Employment Tribunals hear a wide variety of employment cases including unfair dismissal, redundancy, equal pay and discrimination cases. Each has a chairman who is legally qualified and two lay members appointed after consultation with employer’s and employee’s organisations. Individuals may now nominate themselves as lay members. Employment Tribunals are among the most formal and legalistic types of tribunal. The procedure is similar to that of a court and the conduct strongly adversarial. Appeal from this tribunal leads to another tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
-
Social Security Tribunals were created by the Social Services Adjudication Act 1983. The tribunal has a legally qualified chairman and two la judges , one form a panel of employers and one from a panel of employed earners. The proceedings are fairly informal, and are conducted as an inquiry rather than in an adversarial manner, with the members of the tribunal taking some of the initiative in finding out the facts. Appeals by either party are made to the Social Security Commissioner (a barrister or solicitor of 10 years standing). Further appeals lie to the Court of Appeal on a point of law.
-
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The CICA deals with the problem of compensating the victims of violent crime. Although it is possible for such a victim to sue his assailant in the civil courts, this may be pointless if the offender has no money or cannot be traced, and in such circumstances it may be appropriate to allow the victim to claim compensation from public funds. Claims are determined by a claims officer but his decision can be reviewed by a more senior officer within CICA. An appeal against the review decision can be made to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, which is independent of the CICA. The procedure is informal and hearings are in private.
Tribunals have the following advantages over courts:
- They are generally quicker in the hearing and disposal of cases.
- They are cheaper. There are generally no court fees or costs.
- They are more convenient. Cases are usually heard locally and have a fixed ate for hearings.
- They use laymen who usually have practical experience drawn from the area in which the problem arises.
- With the exception of Employment Tribunals, they are less formal, and place less reliance on the formal rules of evidence.
- The adjudicators are usually specialists who quickly gain expertise in their particular area of law. This tends to lead to consistent judgements.
- Tribunals are essential to cope with the volume of work. There would not be enough time or money available for the courts to deal with all the minor cases.
The main disadvantages are as follows:
- It can be argued that not having such formal rules leads to a lowering of standards of justice.
- Although they are supposed to be informal, some critics say that they are as remote and inaccessible as courts, and that ordinary people are unable to understand them. In particular, the adversarial rather than an inquisitorial approach may lead to unfairness.
- Despite the participation of legally qualified personnel, tribunals rely heavily on the expertise of unqualified laymen who may not fully understand the workings of the system.
- Although tribunals are not formally bound by precedent they tend to record and follow their own decisions. This can lead to rigidity and to an enormous, unwieldy body of law.
- Public funding is not available for representation before most tribunals.
- Although everyone has the right to be legally represented, the cost is likely to deter some individuals from seeking legal advice. The unrepresented individual is likely to de at a particular disadvantage in a dispute with a business, which almost certainly will be legally represented, both because of lack of legal knowledge and because of the unfamiliar tribunal procedure.
- The powers of the Council on Tribunals are too limited.
The Court of First Instance
The Court of First Instance is an EU court and was established in 1989 to reduce the very large workload of the ECJ. One judge from each Member sate sits in the CFI. The jurisdiction of the CFI includes:
- disputes between the EU institutions and their officials and staff
- actions brought against the Commission by businesses
- actions brought against the EU institutions by individuals or businesses
- restricted power to implement the EU competition rules, including related matters such as levies, production, prices, subsidies and agreements.
The European Court of Justice
Art 220 EC Treaty states that the ECJ’s purpose is to ensure that the implementation and application of this Treaty the law is observed. Like the Court of First Instance the ECJ consists of one judge from each member state, serving for a renewable six year term. They are assisted by eight Advocates General, who are independent, and whose purpose is to advise them. The ECJ has two types of jurisdiction:
-
Direct actions against Member States for failing to fulfil their obligations under EC law.
-
Preliminary rulings, in which any court or tribunal in any Member State may ask the ECJ, under Art 234 EC Treaty, for a ruling on a question of interpretation or validity of a point of EC law that is necessary in order for it properly to determine a case before it.
The European Court of Human Rights.
The ECtHR hears cases concerning breaches of the European Convention of Human Rights, which was signed in 1951 by a number of European countries, including the UK.