ChatterBank3 mins ago
Solicitor To Hear An Appeal
20 Answers
Are there specialised solicitors that only hear appeals, or will all solicitors include appeals In their services?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fruitsalad. 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.
Barrister are the ones who prance around in court
and solicitors prepare case work - write wills and so on
this is now blurred and solicitors can plead in court ( have a right of audience ) but I dont think there are any who have the bit of paper that allows them to appear in the Supreme Court
and they ( solicitors that is ) can become judges
https:/
you sortta have to do the course and get the bit of paper
We need more facts if you can give them
Your question seems to imply that abyone can walk into a solicitors and scream "I appeal!" and some paper shuffler will sidle up and say "Yes sir I will hear your appeal now"
it sort of doesnt work like that
and solicitors prepare case work - write wills and so on
this is now blurred and solicitors can plead in court ( have a right of audience ) but I dont think there are any who have the bit of paper that allows them to appear in the Supreme Court
and they ( solicitors that is ) can become judges
https:/
you sortta have to do the course and get the bit of paper
We need more facts if you can give them
Your question seems to imply that abyone can walk into a solicitors and scream "I appeal!" and some paper shuffler will sidle up and say "Yes sir I will hear your appeal now"
it sort of doesnt work like that
PP the person wants to appeal against his conviction, he was made out to be something, he most certainly is not, he done the crime holds his hands up to that and is being sentenced accordingly, but they have made out he was 'higher up' the chain so to speak,than he actually was, in fact he is a first time offender, and doesn't want to appeal the sentence, but appeal the conviction.
I'm confused too!
Anyone can appeal against their sentence. However a judge has to grant permission for an appeal against a conviction and specific reasons need to be given as to why such an appeal should be heard. They are normally either:
(a) because the trial judge appears to have mis-directed the jury ; or
(b) because new evidence has come to light, which wasn't available at the original trial.
(The convicted person can't simply say "I want to have another trial". There must be valid reasons why an appeal should be heard or he won't be allowed to appeal).
Normally the solicitor who represented the (alleged) offender initially would advise as to the possibility of an appeal (guided by the barrister who represented the offender in the Crown Court, if appropriate). Otherwise any solicitor who deals with criminal cases should be able to advise. (There's obviously no point in speaking to a solicitor who specialises in, say, conveyancing or matrimonial disputes. Only a minority of solicitors work in the criminal courts).
Anyone can appeal against their sentence. However a judge has to grant permission for an appeal against a conviction and specific reasons need to be given as to why such an appeal should be heard. They are normally either:
(a) because the trial judge appears to have mis-directed the jury ; or
(b) because new evidence has come to light, which wasn't available at the original trial.
(The convicted person can't simply say "I want to have another trial". There must be valid reasons why an appeal should be heard or he won't be allowed to appeal).
Normally the solicitor who represented the (alleged) offender initially would advise as to the possibility of an appeal (guided by the barrister who represented the offender in the Crown Court, if appropriate). Otherwise any solicitor who deals with criminal cases should be able to advise. (There's obviously no point in speaking to a solicitor who specialises in, say, conveyancing or matrimonial disputes. Only a minority of solicitors work in the criminal courts).
Generally, if an accused wants to plead guilty but disputes the facts (to an extent that the sentence may be significantly different depending on what version of events are accepted) there has to be a "Newton Hearing". This takes the form of a trial but it is not guilt that is being tested but the facts of the matter. Speeding is an easy example to understand this. Driver pleads guilty to speeding but says he was only doing 80mph. Police insist he was doing 100mph. A Newton Hearing is held to determine which version is used for sentencing.
Your friend cannot appeal against his conviction if he has pleaded guilty and before doing so he should have mentioned that he did not agree to the facts. Before going any further (and before finally confirming 'Chico's excellent explanation) is the matter being dealt with in the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court? There is a slight difference in the appeal procedure between the two.
Your friend cannot appeal against his conviction if he has pleaded guilty and before doing so he should have mentioned that he did not agree to the facts. Before going any further (and before finally confirming 'Chico's excellent explanation) is the matter being dealt with in the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court? There is a slight difference in the appeal procedure between the two.
I'm pretty sure you can't accept the sentence but appeal the conviction if that is what you mean? Is he saying he should have been tried for a different offence but given the same sentence.
If as you imply he pleaded guilty that means he accepted all the facts of the offence offered by the prosecution.
If as you imply he pleaded guilty that means he accepted all the facts of the offence offered by the prosecution.
No he didn't go ahead with the Newton Hearing, like I said he pleaded guilty to the crime, but he was made out to be higher up the chain than he actually was, in fact the judge is probably making an example of him, because they can't get to the top of the chain, so to speak, because they are not sure who or where they are.
a bit of a jaundiced view here
https:/
it may ( we have not been told) that he as advised against a newton hearing on the grounds that the sentence could be worse
and then in the event he didnt like what was said during sentencing
I am not sure if he can appeal against sentence
(the answer's yes innit ?)
the solicitor - see the OP - representing him could tell you
( it all costs money )
https:/
it may ( we have not been told) that he as advised against a newton hearing on the grounds that the sentence could be worse
and then in the event he didnt like what was said during sentencing
I am not sure if he can appeal against sentence
(the answer's yes innit ?)
the solicitor - see the OP - representing him could tell you
( it all costs money )
"it may ( we have not been told) that he as advised against a newton hearing on the grounds that the sentence could be worse "
Not so, Peter. The very worst outcome of a Newton Hearing is that the defendant is sentenced on the basis of the prosecution's version of the facts (which he would have been without the hearing). He loses nothing. He still gains all the benefits that a guilty plea attracts.
Not so, Peter. The very worst outcome of a Newton Hearing is that the defendant is sentenced on the basis of the prosecution's version of the facts (which he would have been without the hearing). He loses nothing. He still gains all the benefits that a guilty plea attracts.
PP he is ''happy'' with the sentence, it is the details of the conviction he is not happy with! But as said, he pleaded Guilty!
Fruitsalad, I can't see how he can accept the sentence but not the conviction?
Surely if the Judge really thought he was 'higher up the chain ' as you put it the sentence would have been longer?
Fruitsalad, I can't see how he can accept the sentence but not the conviction?
Surely if the Judge really thought he was 'higher up the chain ' as you put it the sentence would have been longer?
Nooj
the link makes it very clear that sentences may be worse if the Newton hearing causes the judge pain ( necessity to cross examine vulnerable witnesses was one thing - oh pain and expense and time in arranging it)
and magically the link has closed ( !! ) and said it is now ( three mins later ) only for premium subscribers which you may be but I am not
the other thing on appeals is here
http://
and it all looks Very Very Expensive to me
He sounds to be honest like most of the prison population - completely screwed
the link makes it very clear that sentences may be worse if the Newton hearing causes the judge pain ( necessity to cross examine vulnerable witnesses was one thing - oh pain and expense and time in arranging it)
and magically the link has closed ( !! ) and said it is now ( three mins later ) only for premium subscribers which you may be but I am not
the other thing on appeals is here
http://
and it all looks Very Very Expensive to me
He sounds to be honest like most of the prison population - completely screwed
1 to 20 of 20
