Neil Wilby Media

As a miscarriage of justice campaigner, the author of this article, journalist Neil Wilby, is often asked what are the key points to focus upon when challenging what are believed to be unsafe, or plainly wrongful, convictions.

In the England and Wales court jurisdiction, the top five grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction typically include:

1. Error in Law: This ground involves arguing that the trial judge misdirected the jury on a point of law, leading to an incorrect verdict. It may also involve challenging the judge’s rulings on legal matters during the trial.

2. Improper Conduct: This ground involves alleging that the trial was unfair due to improper conduct by the prosecution, defence, or the judge. Improper conduct may include prejudicial remarks, failure to disclose evidence, or other forms of misconduct that may have influenced the outcome of the trial.

3. New Evidence: This ground involves presenting new evidence that was not available at the time of the trial and which, if presented, could have affected the verdict. The Court of Appeal may consider new evidence if it is deemed to be credible, relevant, and capable of affecting the safety of the conviction.

4. Miscarriage of Justice: This ground involves arguing that there has been a miscarriage of justice, meaning that the conviction is unsafe due to a fundamental error or injustice in the trial process. This ground is often invoked when there are significant doubts about the reliability of the evidence or the fairness of the trial.

5. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: This ground involves alleging that the defendant’s legal representation during the trial was inadequate and that this inadequacy resulted in an unfair trial or an incorrect verdict. This may include failure to adequately investigate the case, failure to present relevant evidence, or failure to provide effective legal advice and representation.

These are the top grounds of appeal against conviction, but it’s important to note that each case is unique, and other grounds may also be raised depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

The admission of ‘new evidence’ by the Court of Appeal presents a high hurdle: The general principle is that new evidence will only be admitted if it is both significant and credible, and if it could not have been adduced at trial with reasonable diligence. This principle is reflected in the Court of Appeal’s approach to hearing appeals based on new evidence.

When considering whether to admit new evidence, the Court of Appeal will assess various factors, including:

1. Significance: The new evidence must be capable of potentially influencing the outcome of the case. It should be material to the issues in dispute and not merely cumulative or tangential.

2. Credibility: The evidence must be credible and reliable. The court will consider factors such as the source of the evidence, its consistency with other evidence, and any corroborating evidence.

3. Diligence: The party seeking to adduce new evidence must demonstrate that they could not have reasonably obtained or presented the evidence at the trial stage. The court will assess whether the evidence could have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.

4. Impact on fairness: The admission of new evidence should not prejudice the fairness of the proceedings or the opposing party’s ability to respond effectively.

Overall, the threshold for admitting new evidence is stringent, and the Court of Appeal exercises caution to ensure that the integrity of the trial process is maintained.

Neil Wilby has been involved with many miscarriage of justices cases over many years, each so very important to the wronged parties in their unique ways, but these are three of the highest profile examples:

The conviction of ‘The Bradford 4’ (Lee Calvert, Joseph Lowther, Robert Woodhead and Andrew Feather Jnr) over the murder of Barry Selby in 2013 (read more here); John Elam, whose case was raised in an adjournment debate in Parliament in 2014 (read more here); and the biggest failed fraud investigation in British policing history involving Ralph Christie, who was cleared by a Greek court in October, 2013 but convicted in Bradford Crown Court in 2015 on much the same basis of charges (read more here).

In all these cases, the production of “new evidence” has been hampered by disclosure issues with the police and prosecutors. reflecting concerns about disclosure obligations not being met during the trial process. These disclosure issues have arisen due to various reasons, including the complexity of the case, procedural errors, or failures to disclose material that could potentially undermine the conviction.

In recent years, there have been instances where concerns about disclosure failures have led to successful appeals or reviews of convictions. In response to these concerns, efforts have been made to improve disclosure practices and ensure that defendants have access to all relevant evidence that may impact their cases.

However, despite these efforts, disclosure issues can and do still arise, as the national scandal of the Post Office Horizon victims has shown, and appellants have to navigate legal procedures to address them effectively, frequently without funding and the ability to earn impaired by the very convictions they are seeking to overturn.

The conviction of Lee Calvert, regarded as the ‘principal’ in the Selby murder, has been referred back to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Case Review Commission and the first hearing is expected to be listed within the next few weeks (read more here). A case typically dogged by disclosure and new evidence issues which, with the powerful assistance of the criminal justice watchdog, have hopefully been successfully overcome.

The first appeal to the Court of Appeal in June, 2016 at which Neil Wilby was present in the press box, was dismissed.

Page last updated: Saturday 27th April, 2024 at 08h25 

Thank you for reading and a polite request: If you feel this article is of value and in the public interest, and wish to make a contribution to the running costs of this website, it would be very much appreciated. Donations can made securely (and anonymously if required), via Buy Me A Coffee at this link or via PayPal at this link.

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Picture credit: NWM

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2024. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.