Analysis Of Appellate Review Procedures
1. Overview: Appellate Review Procedures
Appellate review allows parties (usually the accused) to challenge decisions of lower courts in higher courts. It ensures fairness, legality, and consistency in the criminal justice system.
Objectives of Appellate Review:
Correct errors of law, fact, or procedure.
Protect Charter rights (ss. 7–14) of accused persons.
Promote uniform interpretation of law.
Maintain public confidence in the justice system.
Types of Appeals:
Appeal as of Right – Automatically allowed (e.g., provincial court convictions on indictable offenses).
Leave to Appeal – Requires permission, typically for complex legal questions or minor convictions.
Sentence Appeal – Challenge only the severity or appropriateness of sentence.
Conviction Appeal – Challenge a finding of guilt.
Charter-Based Appeal – Challenge constitutional violations affecting the trial outcome.
2. Appellate Review Process
Steps in Criminal Appeals:
Notice of Appeal – Filed within statutory period.
Preparation of Record/Transcripts – Includes trial transcript, exhibits, and evidence.
Written Submissions (Factum) – Both parties submit arguments.
Hearing Before Appellate Court – Panel reviews record; may allow oral arguments.
Decision – Court may:
Uphold conviction or sentence.
Quash conviction.
Order a new trial.
Vary the sentence.
Standard of Review:
Error of Law: Correctness standard (no deference).
Error of Fact / Mixed Law and Fact: Reasonableness standard.
Discretionary Decisions: Deference unless unreasonable.
3. Case Law on Appellate Review
Case 1: R v. Oickle, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3
Issue: Voluntariness of confession and Charter compliance.
Appellate Review Outcome:
Trial court admitted confession; Court of Appeal overturned it.
SCC restored conviction, clarifying voluntariness tests.
Significance:
Appellate review ensures correct legal interpretation of Charter protections.
Demonstrates that appellate courts can reassess trial rulings on legal issues.
Case 2: R v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199
Issue: Unreasonable delay in criminal trial (s. 11(b) Charter).
Appellate Review Outcome:
Convictions stayed due to unreasonable delay.
SCC established guidelines for assessing timely trials.
Significance:
Appellate courts correct systemic procedural failures.
Created precedent impacting trial scheduling nationwide.
Case 3: R v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27
Issue: Modern application of s. 11(b) for trial delays.
Appellate Review Outcome:
SCC emphasized presumptive ceilings for trial timelines (18 months for provincial, 30 months for superior courts).
Conviction stayed due to violation of reasonable time principle.
Significance:
Shows appellate review can set new legal standards, not just correct errors.
Case 4: R v. Starr, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144
Issue: Admissibility of hearsay evidence in sexual assault trial.
Appellate Review Outcome:
Trial court admitted hearsay; Court of Appeal questioned reliability.
SCC clarified principles of reliability and necessity for hearsay evidence.
Significance:
Demonstrates appellate review can refine evidentiary law, guiding future trials.
Case 5: R v. Hape, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292
Issue: Extraterritorial application of Charter during overseas evidence collection.
Appellate Review Outcome:
SCC upheld evidence obtained abroad under foreign law.
Appellate review clarified limits of Charter extraterritorial protections.
Significance:
Shows appellate courts balance legal principles, international law, and procedural fairness.
Case 6: R v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13
Issue: Sentencing of Indigenous offenders.
Appellate Review Outcome:
SCC ruled appellate courts must consider unique systemic and background factors for Indigenous accused.
Significance:
Illustrates appellate review protects fairness and equality in sentencing.
Appellate courts can correct overly harsh or biased sentences.
Case 7: R v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484
Issue: Conviction appeal in sexual assault case.
Appellate Review Outcome:
SCC reviewed trial evidence, emphasizing standard of review for jury verdicts.
Conviction upheld; appellate review respected jury findings but corrected misapplications of law.
Significance:
Clarifies that appellate courts defer to jury on facts but can correct legal errors.
4. Key Principles from Appellate Review Cases
| Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Correction of Legal Errors | Appellate courts review trial rulings for errors of law | R v. Oickle, R v. Starr |
| Protection of Charter Rights | Safeguard against violations affecting conviction | R v. Askov, R v. Jordan |
| Setting Precedent | Appellate review clarifies or creates new legal standards | R v. Jordan, R v. Ipeelee |
| Review of Sentencing | Sentences can be increased, decreased, or varied | R v. Ipeelee |
| Balance of Fact and Law | Appellate courts defer to jury on facts but review legal reasoning | R v. S. (R.D.), R v. Starr |
| Systemic Oversight | Appellate review ensures fairness and public confidence | R v. Hape |
5. Effectiveness of Appellate Review Procedures
Strengths:
Provides a check on trial errors, protecting accused rights.
Clarifies legal principles for lower courts.
Addresses procedural errors and Charter violations.
Enhances uniformity in sentencing and law application.
Limitations:
Appeals are time-consuming and expensive.
Limited to matters preserved at trial.
Appellate review cannot fully reassess credibility of witnesses.
RELATED Blog
comments