Special Types of Practice: Court Trials & Appeal Courts - Guides
Court Trials & Appeal Courts
12. Appeals
Firm / Chambers:
Last updated: 18 Jul 2015
- An appeal is an application made to a higher court to alter the judgment of a lower one.
- Whether a party can appeal a trial decision always depends on the appeal laws in the state or territory in which the trial was held.
- Appeals may be about questions of fact where the appellant alleges that the magistrate or judge made an error relating to the facts of the case or questions of law where the appellant contends that the magistrate or judge has incorrectly applied the law or failed to follow the required legal processes.
- For example lawyers for a convicted person might tell an appeal court that the judge allowed evidence that should not have been allowed or stopped evidence being given that should have been allowed.
- The verdict of a trial court is presumed to be correct unless the appellant can satisfy the higher court that the verdict was wrong. In some cases you may need to seek leave (permission) before you can bring an appeal. The error by the judge must be so serious that it warrants a reversal or alteration of the decision or possibly even a setting aside of the judgment and a new trial.
- The most common appeal is from a decision of a jury in a criminal trial but an appeal can take many forms depending on the type of court where the case was first heard.
- Appeals usually allege that the trial judge made an error when:
- interpreting the law that was referred to in the trial such as declaring that a maximum penalty was greater than it really is or misstating the elements that need to be proved;
- interpreting the facts of the trial case such as placing too much reliance on an isolated fact in a way that was not supported by the evidence; or
- wrongly directing the jury before it went to consider the evidence and reach a verdict such as wrongly allowing the jury to hear evidence of a confession that was made under duress (pressure) and then not giving proper directions that the jury should not presume a confession is true.
- There are many different directions that a judge is required to give to a jury as different situations arise throughout a criminal trial. These include directions about:
- the onus and standard of proof;
- the jury’s role and responsibilities;
- the procedure for the trial;
- unreliable evidence;
- a witness’s motivation to lie;
- confessions and admissions;
- tendency and coincidence evidence;
- silence of the accused;
- opinion evidence; and
- character evidence.
- In some cases important and significant new evidence becomes known in the time since the trial court made its decision and this evidence can be cause for an appeal. However it cannot simply be evidence that was available during the trial but which was not submitted because you did not think you needed it. You will have to prove that you did not reasonably have access to this evidence during the original trial.
- Appeals from criminal trial sentences sometimes take the form of an argument that the judge was in error because the sentence was manifestly excessive. If the prosecution appeals from a sentence it usually argues that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.
- Appeals from civil decisions also may revolve around figures although in this case the complaint will be that the judge failed to award an adequate amount of damages or that the award was too generous or failed to take into account the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. However these appeals must first establish that a judge has made an error of fact or law.
- You cannot appeal a decision simply because you think it should have been more favourable to you.
- There may be an exception here if the amounts awarded were completely out of proportion to awards in other similar cases and there were no exceptional circumstances in the case at hand. That would be an error of law.
- Common grounds for appeal in civil cases include:
- failure of the judge to give adequate reasons for their decision;
- that the judge applied an incorrect principle of law;
- that the judge’s finding on an important issue could not be supported by the facts;
- that you have been denied procedural fairness because the correct legal processes were not followed;
- that the judge gave insufficient weight to important evidence or gave too much weight to insignificant or irrelevant evidence; or
- that the judge was biased. If you are claiming that the judge was biased there are specific definitions and standards you will need to consider. You should consult with your lawyer carefully as this is a very serious claim to make and can be very difficult to prove. In the experience of the courts every party who is upset by a decision being made in favour of the other party is likely to feel that the judge was biased against them.
View more Information on Special Types of Practice