They Just Can't Help It Can They?
News1 min ago
appeal
3 Answers
What can someone do if they have appealed against their sentance and have been knocked back by the high court.? is there anymore procedures after this. or is that the final say. even thogh the person pleaded guilty at the start, and it his first offence. the offence was possesion wtih intent crack cocaine 1.0z. And got 5years in prison the barrister was shocked along with everyone else.He said he would get 3 to 4yrs max.
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by haider ali. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The highest criminal appeal court for England and Wales is the House of Lords. In Scotland, it is the High Court - normally sitting in Edinburgh.
However the European Court of Justice can strike down legislation that does not comply with the the European Court of Human Rights.
So, if in England/Wales, the next step is an appeal (against sentence) to the HOL.
However the European Court of Justice can strike down legislation that does not comply with the the European Court of Human Rights.
So, if in England/Wales, the next step is an appeal (against sentence) to the HOL.
In England you need leave to appeal from either the High Court or the Court of Appeal to go to the House of Lords. This is normally only granted when points of law need clarification of ratification.
If an appeal has already been heard against sentence the matter you mention seems unlikely to be given such leave. A sentence of five years (when three or four was expected) does not seem unduly harsh, perhaps just a little unexpected.
It does not appear on face value to be a matter covered by the European Convention on Human Rights (and so subject to the UK's 1998 Act, or a matter for the European Courts). It seems simply a difference of opinion between the defending counsel and the judge.
If an appeal has already been heard against sentence the matter you mention seems unlikely to be given such leave. A sentence of five years (when three or four was expected) does not seem unduly harsh, perhaps just a little unexpected.
It does not appear on face value to be a matter covered by the European Convention on Human Rights (and so subject to the UK's 1998 Act, or a matter for the European Courts). It seems simply a difference of opinion between the defending counsel and the judge.
Nothing. The Court of Appeal says what the sentence in the case should have been, and that's that.
What sometimes happens is that the Court of Appeal decides that a given type of crime is not being sentenced severely enough. When that happens , the very next case they get with what appeared to be a harsh sentence in the court below is used by the Court of Appeal as an opportunity to lay down the law and to make speeches telling judges to be harsher in future. And of course, they uphold the sentence (always assuming it's not so wildly out as to exceed even their wishes).
This might just be such a case.Or such a case may have happened between this one and the appeareance in the Court of Appeal . Even so, and that said, 5 years,first offence, even on a plea of guilty, to possessing crack with intent seems right.
What sometimes happens is that the Court of Appeal decides that a given type of crime is not being sentenced severely enough. When that happens , the very next case they get with what appeared to be a harsh sentence in the court below is used by the Court of Appeal as an opportunity to lay down the law and to make speeches telling judges to be harsher in future. And of course, they uphold the sentence (always assuming it's not so wildly out as to exceed even their wishes).
This might just be such a case.Or such a case may have happened between this one and the appeareance in the Court of Appeal . Even so, and that said, 5 years,first offence, even on a plea of guilty, to possessing crack with intent seems right.
1 to 3 of 3
