Unmeritorious appeals ‘clogging the arteries’ of CoA

Tuesday 11 December 2012 by Catherine Baksi

Increasing numbers of ‘unmeritorious’ appeals could have the effect of ‘clogging the arteries’ of the court of appeal, the registrar of criminal appeals has warned.

In the court’s annual review published today, Master Egan QC says that with pressure on funding and as the number of applications increase, the court may give a ‘more rigorous look at the quality of applications’.

He says legal aid lawyers are ‘being squeezed’, but warns that the court will ‘adopt a high line’ in granting representation orders. Egan says: ‘Appellants who need representation must get it but it is unrealistic for there to be an expectation of paid funding for every application that the court of appeal receives.

‘Unhappily there are very many unmeritorious applications and those could have the effect of clogging the arteries of the court if they are not looked at and dispatched critically and justly.’

While praising barristers who do pro bono applications where leave to appeal is refused, he says: ‘It is not the case that the court will grant leave and a retrospective representation order merely because counsel is willing to argue the point.’

Egan advises barristers to consider carefully the single judge’s reasons for refusing leave, adding: ‘I sometime wonder whether they are examined as carefully as they should be.’

The review, from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012, shows that the number of cases received by the court rose by 6% to 7,442. Of those, 5,711 were appeals against sentence (compared with 5,481 the year before) and 1,731 were appeals against conviction, up from 1,491.

Almost 73% of conviction appeals were refused by the single judge and 65% of appeals against sentence were similarly refused.

The review shows that on average over the a three-year period 11% of conviction appeals and 25% of sentence appeals are successful.

Egan notes the ‘significant increase’ in conviction appeals and the decrease in successful cases – the average calculated over three years to 2012 is 11% compared with 12.8% for the three years to 2011.

He says: ‘This statistic does not always give the true picture; nevertheless is does not refute the impression that there has been an increase in unmeritorious applications.’

Introducing the report, the lord chief justice Lord Judge says the court continues to be concerned about jurors’ use of the web and social media. ‘There have been an increasing number of cases in which grounds of appeal against conviction have featured allegations of jury impropriety relating to the misuse of technology.’

Judge says the issue will require ‘close attention’ to ‘ensure the continuing integrity of the jury system’.

Comments

It's Not Unexpected under the present system

'While praising barristers who do pro bono applications where leave to appeal is refused, he says: ‘It is not the case that the court will grant leave and a retrospective representation order merely because counsel is willing to argue the point.’
Legal Aid to be withdrawn from those seeking justice...and now justice itself to be withdrawn even when you or someone else want to pay for it? What a Great Britain we now have. With this coming from the judiciary, no wonder this government cares not a hoot about 'tearing up' the human rights legislation.

The real cause for concern is

The real cause for concern is that in a quarter of cases the sentences originally imposed by the Crown Court have been deemed manifestly excessive, with these sort of statistics appeals , especially against sentence are only going to rise and not fall.

Shortening the lists

First it is the High Court whining because it is getting too many "ill considered" JR applications from immigration lawyers, now the Court of Criminal Appeal over "unmeritorious" appeals. Is this the latest Whitehall wheeze for saving time/money in the court system? What next? Should Magistrates' Courts stop accepting charges/summonses in light of the number of discontinued cases or "Not Guilty" findings? Or "Not Guilty" pleas for that matter?

Too many bites at the cherry

I think they have got a point actually.

In this day and age why should the courts being dealing with meritless appeals and timewasting by solicitors and litigants. Certainly in the Civil Appeals Court it seems at times they grant leave to appeal if there is a minor technical reason to allow it or an immaterial error by a judge - never mind that the case is completely pants and would never succeed anyway.

Litigants get too many bites at the cherry. For example why should a claimant in a civil appeal have a right to have an oral hearing when it has been refused on paper?.

It's no wonder some hopelessly poor cases drag on for years. Too much buck passing by judges. Spend more time dealing with the cases properly and if they clearly hopeless - dismiss them with no rights of appeal.

The Registrar of the Criminal

The Registrar of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal doesn't deal with civil cases. Therefore what you say about civil appeals is not relevant to the topic.

Relevance

I was not aware that you were the moderator for Law Society blog discussions.

Besides it is relevant because it was addressing the previous post which mentioned judicial reviews and the comment addresses the general attitude amongst solicitors and litigants in the justice system - which is the inability to accept the answer no and think they have the right to appeal every decision..

By the way, how is your judicial review against the LeO coming along?

JUDICIAL REVIEW APPEALS

IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM GOING TO DOGS? IF WE CAN'T AFFORD JUSTICE TO BE SEEN TO BE DONE THAN ARE WE SLOWLY BUT SURELY DWINDLING INTO A POLICE STATE, NOT DISSIMILAR TO THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WE HAD IN THE BRITISH COLONIES- MANY EXAMPLES THE MAUMAU FREEDOM STRUGGLE< THE KINYATTA TRIAL AND SO OIN AND ON...