Grounds of Appeal in Criminal Cases

• NCJ Number: 163024
• Author(s): P Duff; F McCallum
• Date Published: 1996
• Length: 4 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Scottish Office Central Research & Statistics Unit
• Sale Source: Scottish Office Central Research & Statistics Unit
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS. Scottish Office Central Research Unit Crime and Criminal Justice Research Findings No. 12. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, International Crime Statistics Program.

Annotation

The Sutherland Committee on Appeals Criteria and Alleged Miscarriages of Justice was established in 1994 by the then Secretary of State for Scotland to examine the criteria governing the consideration of criminal appeals against conviction and the procedures for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice; this paper summarizes the main findings of the study.

Abstract

Most appeals (65 percent) were abandoned before the Appeal Court passed judgment on their merits; of the remainder, 25 percent were refused, and 10 percent were allowed. Most abandonments (85 percent) occurred before the first Appeal Court hearing. Defense agents believed that several factors influenced the abandonment of appeals. Some were related to the quality of the appeal and were often linked; these were a realization by the appellant that the initial impulse to appeal was misconceived; an unhelpful stated case or charge to the jury; an unfavorable counsel opinion; and a refusal of legal aid. Other factors not related to the quality of the appeal but that were thought to lead to abandonment were the refusal of interim liberation and a perceived greater propensity to appeal, regardless of the strength of the case, by people sentenced to custody. The success rate for appeals ranged from 5 percent of all appeals lodged against decisions of the High Court to 15 percent of appeals lodged from district courts. Approximately half of the appeals were based on multiple grounds, and 30 different grounds were identified. Although the more frequently cited grounds of appeal tended to have higher abandonment rates, they did not generally appear to have different success rates. Applications for legal aid were more likely to be granted for appeals against decisions of the higher courts, which reflects the fact that these were the most serious cases. Where legal aid was refused, the appeal was abandoned in three quarters of cases; where legal aid was granted, however, abandonments occurred in less than one-third of the cases. The refusal of interim liberation did not affect the rate of abandonment, although it made an early abandonment more likely. 3 tables