unit 15 - Appeals CC (BSB unit 28) Flashcards
Variation of sentence
A sentence imposed or other order made by the Crown Court when dealing with an offender may be varied or rescinded within
56 days of being passed or made.
Variation of sentence - can it be a different judge??
NO!
MUST BE THE SAME JUDGE who originally passed sentence
if, however, the judge was accompanied by justices on the first occasion (i.e. on an appeal from the magistrates’ court), they need not be present for the variation
The power to rectify mistakes is extinguished if an appeal against it, or application for leave to appeal against it, has been determined,
i.e. if you proceed with an application for leave to appeal to CA and it is determined by the single judge or by the court = then the power is extinguished because a superior court has determined the matter.
Extent of the Power to Vary
The power in the SA 2020, s. 385, may be used to replace one form of sentence with a quite different form. This was illustrated in:
[CASE LAW]
† (a) Sodhi (1978), where the Crown Court, upon learning that D had been diagnosed by psychiatrists as suffering from paranoid psychosis and was dangerous, substituted for a six-month prison sentence a hospital order plus restriction order without time-limit; and
† (b) Iqbal (1985) in which an unlawful sentence of 30 months’ youth custody passed on a 16-year-old was replaced by an equivalent term of detention under what is now the SA 2020, s. 250.
so
The word ‘varied’ has a wide meaning, not restricted to changing the length of a sentence, Can be used to replace one form of sentence with a quite different form,
eg:
g:
o Replace a six-month prison sentence with a hospital order plus restriction order without time-limit;
o Replace an unlawful sentence of 30 months’ youth custody passed on a juvenile, with an equivalent term of detention.
The vast majority of appeals against conviction and sentence are disposed of by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) under its statutory jurisdiction. Section 15(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 enables the exercise of the statutory powers conferred under the following legislative provisions, amongst others:
[THE LAW]
Jurisdiction to determine appeals against conviction on indictment.
Jurisdiction to determine appeals against sentence passed following conviction on indictment.
Jurisdiction to determine appeals against sentence passed on a committal for sentence.
Jurisdiction to give an opinion on a point of law referred to the court by the A-G following an acquittal on indictment. Jurisdiction to determine appeals against rulings made at preparatory hearings in serious fraud cases.
Jurisdiction to increase sentence on a reference by the A-G following an unduly lenient sentence for an offence triable only on indictment.
Jurisdiction to determine appeals on a reference by the CCRC.
COA (Criminal Division) hearing an appeal against a refusal to make a football banning order
There is no power for the COA to do so!!
Appeal to the COA
Matters Dealt with by the Full Court
A CA of an uneven number of judges, no fewer than 3, is required to determine:
(a) an appeal against conviction;
(b) a review of sentence under AG’s references for unduly lenient sentence, Part IV CJA 1988
(c) an appeal against a finding of unfitness to plead (s4 Crim Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964)
(d) an application for leave to appeal a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity or a finding under s4 19864 Act which has not previously been refused by a single judge
(e) application for leave to appeal to Supreme Court.
Appeal to the COA
Normally, will be 3 judges: exceptionally, 5 or even 7 judges, when:
o the matter is v important and would benefit from the authority of such a court;
o or where there have been conflicting decisions of the CA on the same point.
APPEALS TO THE COA
Matters dealt with by a 2-judge cour:
- a 2 judge court may deal with any matter other than those above.
- Including: appeal against sentence (not by way of AG’s reference for unduly lenient sentence).
Appeal against conviction (NB, only accused can appeal, not prosecution)
* S1 CAA 1968: a person convicted of an offence on indictment may appeal to the CA against his conviction, IF:
(a) with leave of the CA; OR
(b) trial judge, within 28 days of conviction, grants a certificate that case is fit for appeal (exceptional circumstances).
Do you need leave to appeal to the COA?
YES
unless trial judge has exceptionally granted certificate of fitness for appeal
What is the certificate of fitness for appeal?
(1) Such a certificate of fitness to appeal against conviction or sentence should be issued only in exceptional circumstances.
(2) The certificate removes the need for leave to appeal to be granted by the Court of Appeal but it does not commence the appeal; advocates still need to follow the procedure under CrimPR Part 39
Appeal against Conviction to the COA
Written grounds of appeal must be submitted within …
28 days of the conviction.
Granting leave to appeal against conviction to the COA.
- The initial decision either to grant or refuse leave is usually taken on the papers by the single judge
- but sometimes the decision as to leave may be made by a two-judge or full court at the discretion of the Registrar of Criminal Appeals
- The need for expedition is sometimes a reason for holding such a leave hearing. Such a hearing will also often take place when an unlawful sentence has been passed and the sentence will inevitably need adjusting
What if the granting of leave to appeal against conviction to the COA is refused by the single judge?
the applicant is entitled to renew the application before a two-judge or full court under s. 31(3).
Conviction following a Plea of Guilty to the COA: can be this done?
YES
Conviction following a Plea of Guilty to the COA:
If the conviction is found to be unsafe, despite the guilty plea =
conviction will be quashed, court can rule the plea a nullity.
Appeal of conviction following a Plea of Guilty to the COA:
Court’s consideration if the conviction is safe
it will be highly relevant to the consideration of whether the conviction is safe, that:
a. the appellant was fit to plead;
b. had received expert advice;
c. had been aware of what he was doing; and
d. had intended to plead guilty.
Most common basis upon which an unequivocal plea of guilty is challenged
= where there has been an incorrect ruling on a point of law by trial judge which allows
the appellant no escape from a guilty verdict.
Appeal to COA: can the court consider fresh evidence on appeal?
The Court of Appeal may also quash a conviction arising from a guilty plea following the admission of fresh evidence on appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, s. 23
Appeal to COA
conviction not normally held unsafe if an appellant has simply been influenced
to enter a plea of guilty because of a decision to admit evidence which meant his
prospects of acquittal were hopeless.
Highly unlikely an appeal would be entertained where a D pleaded guilty
following a decision to admit evidence of bad character
A conviction may also be held unsafe where the guilty plea flowed from inappropriate legal advice
o Eg, where D was not advised as to a possible defence = if the conviction is
regarded as unsafe, but is an exceptional course; only where the CA believes the overlooked defence would quite probably have succeeded, or that there was a reasonable prospect of the defence succeeding.
The wrongful exclusion of admissible evidence or wrongful inclusion of inadmissible evidence will lead to the =
quashing of a conviction if the error means that the conviction is unsafe
- Even if the appellant’s advocate failed to object to the admission of the evidence when it was adduced.
- But the fact that the advocate did not object will be a factor in determining whether its admission rendered the conviction unsafe.
Erroneous Exercise of Discretion
CA has often said it will not interfere to quash a conviction on basis of an erroneous exercise of discretion except in very limited circumstances.
Appeal might succeed if there has been:
a. a failure to exercise the discretion, or
b. a failure to take relevant factors into account, or
c. judge took irrelevant factors into account in exercising discretion.
The review is not limited to cases in which a trial judge had erred in principle, or where there was no material on which the decision he reached could properly have been arrived at.
If necessary, court could examine afresh the relevant facts & circumstances in order to exercise a discretion by way of review where the judge’s ruling may have resulted in injustice to the appellants.
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The wrongful rejection of a submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case will lead to the conclusion that a conviction is unsafe
That can be so even when the appellant has given evidence and admitted guilt in cross-examination
1- The failure of an experienced advocate to make a submission of no case will not preclude the quashing of a conviction on the basis that there was in fact no case to answer,
2- the Court of Appeal will presume that the advocate had reason to not make the submission and will look at the whole of the evidence in making its decision. The Court will not ordinarily interfere if a submission would have succeeded but was not made, and evidence of guilt emerged later in the trial
Defects in the Indictment
Where the indictment charges an offence not known to law, the conviction will be quashed
That will be the case even if the accused pleads guilty or no point is taken at trial
Defects in the Indictment
Where the indictment is preferred and signed without jurisdiction, the proceedings will be a nullity
A bill of indictment must be duly signed by the proper officer of the court for it to be a valid indictment.
Without such an indictment, there could be no valid trial on indictment
J [2018]
- where trials proceeded on indictments that had been uploaded to the Crown Court Digital Case System but had not been formally amended and the defendants had not been arraigned on them.
- COA dismissed the appeals against conviction, observing that although the proper course would have been for the original indictments to have been amended and for the defendants to have been re-arraigned, those procedural errors had not resulted in any unfairness to the defendants, nor had they otherwise called into question the safety of their convictions.
Defects in the Indictment
Where an indictment is duplicitous, a conviction may be quashed if the duplicity results in the conviction being unsafe
That is so whether objection was taken at trial or not
Defects in the Indictment
When counts are improperly joined or included in an indictment contrary to CrimPR 3.29(4)
the conviction may be quashed
Defects in the Indictment
If the joinder of counts falls foul of s. 2(2) of the 1933 Act,
the conviction will be quashed subject to the caveat that application must be made at trial to quash the indictment.
Case:
In Morry [1946],
- D had been unrepresented at trial but the trial judge raised the point and that was held to be sufficient.
In Nisbet [1972]
- the COA expressed the obiter view that it had inherent jurisdiction to quash added or substituted counts if they might result in injustice even though they were founded on the committal papers and no objection was taken at trial.
- If counts are improperly joined contrary to CrimPR 10.2 or s. 40, the conviction in relation to the wrongly joined count will be quashed
Inconsistent jury verdicts and jury irregularities
A conviction based on apparently inconsistent verdicts =
COA will quashed conviction
ONLY IF those verdicts are such that no reasonable jury applying its mind to the evidence could have reached the conclusions that it did.
Court should consider the following when considering Inconsistent jury verdicts and jury irregularities =
- it is necessary on appeal to demonstrate the verdicts were not merely inconsistent but were so inconsistent as to demand interference on appeal.
- Important of scrutinising the facts of a case in applying this rule.
- It is for applicant to show a logical inconsistency between the verdicts criticised, and then to demonstrate that it is not possible to postulate a legitimate chain of reasoning which could explain the apparent
inconsistency
-
COA when considering Inconsistent jury verdicts and jury irregularities =
Where verdicts were reached on some counts whilst a jury failed to agree
on others
it is possible an appeal could succeed, where it is logically inexplicable as to how a jury could not reach a verdict on one count when
set against a verdict of guilt on another count; but will be a rare case where
it is ‘logically inexplicable’.
The verdicts must not merely be inconsistent, but so inconsistent as to demand interference on appeal.