Criminal Appeal Lawyers
london.jpg

Appealing Against Conviction

Appealing against conviction

Successfully appealing against a conviction is not an easy process but can be achieved. The prospects of overturning a conviction are increased with the right team behind you. Cases of this type require skill, expert knowledge and a real passion to see that justice is done. Criminal Appeal Lawyers recognise that our trial process is far from perfect and wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice sadly occur all too often. The consequences on those affected can be truly devastating and life changing.  Most lawyers can recognise an injustice when it occurs, but Criminal Appeal Lawyers have the necessary legal, forensic and social skills to help put things right. 

Grounds for an APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION include: 

  • There has been some procedural error or irregularity- Such problems do arise during the trial process.
  • The Judge misdirected the Jury on issues of fact/law or both   Judges can get the law wrong and direct the Jury incorrectly. Similarly, Judges can misrepresent the facts of a case and where either occur, it may be possible to argue that a conviction is unsafe.
  • The Judge failed to direct the Jury fairly  If it can be shown that in some way the Judge was bias toward the prosecution in his summing up then it may be that an appeal can be lodged. The Judge may show bias toward the prosecution or fail to adequately sum up the defence case leaving out highly relevant parts of the defence case or failing to mention aspects of the prosecution case which weaken the case against a defendant.
  • Inconsistent verdicts  This occurs where the Jury convict on some counts but acquit on others and so the verdicts are inconsistent.
  • Wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence  The Judge may have allowed the prosecution wrongly and unfairly to rely on evidence which  such as bad character evidence or hearsay evidence.  Similarly, the Judge may have failed to exclude certain evidence which proved to be highly prejudicial to the defence case. For example, the exclusion of a series or unfair questions in interview or evidence from an unreliable or simply lying witness.
  • Defects in the Indictment  Sometimes the Indictment (the charges) is wrong or there are other defects which render the conviction unsafe.

  • The failure of the trial Judge to withdraw the case from the Jury   Where the prosecution case is weak, it is possible at the end of the prosecution evidence for the defence to argue to the Judge that the case should be withdrawn, referred to as making a ‘submission of no case to answer.’ If it can be argued that the Judge was wrong to reject a defence application, an appeal can be lodged.

  • Poor representation at trial (see publications)  If it can be shown that the preparation and/or presentation of a case by defence solicitors and defence counsel was poor such that the safety of the conviction has been compromised, it may be possible to lodge an appeal. This is a difficult ground of appeal to lodge but it is possible.
  • Defects in the Indictment  Sometimes the Indictment (the charges) is wrong or there are other defects which render the conviction unsafe.

  • The failure of the trial Judge to withdraw the case from the Jury   Where the prosecution case is weak, it is possible at the end of the prosecution evidence for the defence to argue to the Judge that the case should be withdrawn, referred to as making a ‘submission of no case to answer.’ If it can be argued that the Judge was wrong to reject a defence application, an appeal can be lodged.

  • Poor representation at trial (see publications)  If it can be shown that the preparation and/or presentation of a case by defence solicitors and defence counsel was poor such that the safety of the conviction has been compromised, it may be possible to lodge an appeal. This is a difficult ground of appeal to lodge but it is possible.
  • Fresh evidence (see publications)  It may be that after a conviction, fresh evidence comes to light which is capable of showing that the Jury wrongly convicted. It may be that a witness comes forward or there may be an advance is technology or science. It may be that something has appeared in mainstream  media or social media that undermines what a witness said at trial and shows them to have given false or misleading evidence.