Appeals And Procedural Remedies Uk.
1. Introduction
In the UK, appeals and procedural remedies are essential mechanisms to ensure justice, fairness, and correction of errors. They are available in both civil and criminal proceedings.
Appeals: Judicial review of a lower court or tribunal decision by a higher court.
Procedural remedies: Include orders, injunctions, and judicial review remedies to correct procedural or substantive errors.
Key Principles
Right to Appeal
Provided by statute or common law (e.g., Senior Courts Act 1981, Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)).
Grounds for Appeal
Errors of law
Errors of fact
Procedural unfairness
Procedural Remedies Include
Certiorari: Quashes unlawful decisions.
Mandamus: Orders public bodies to perform duties.
Prohibition: Prevents inferior courts or bodies from exceeding jurisdiction.
Injunctions and damages: Protect rights or compensate losses.
2. Civil Appeals
2.1 Structure
County Court → High Court → Court of Appeal (Civil Division) → Supreme Court
Appeals are generally by leave (permission) if going beyond the first appeal.
2.2 Grounds
Procedural irregularity
Misapplication of law
Jurisdictional error
Error in evaluating evidence (limited in civil cases)
Case 1: Smith v. Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830 (Civil Appeal Context)
Facts:
Misrepresentation in a contract dispute.
Issue:
Appeal challenged findings of fact and misapplication of law in the trial court.
Decision:
Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge but clarified misrepresentation law.
Significance:
Appeals are limited to points of law unless there is manifest error in fact evaluation.
Case 2: Swain v. Hillman [2001] 1 WLR 1752
Facts:
Civil claimants appealed a summary judgment.
Issue:
Whether the judge correctly exercised discretion to strike out claims.
Decision:
Court of Appeal emphasized procedural fairness and correct application of summary judgment rules.
Significance:
Establishes that appeals can correct procedural errors affecting substantive justice.
3. Criminal Appeals
3.1 Structure
Magistrates’ Court → Crown Court → Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) → Supreme Court
3.2 Grounds
Miscarriage of justice
Procedural unfairness
Excessive sentence or erroneous sentence application
Case 3: R v. Jogee [2016] UKSC 8
Facts:
Appeal against joint enterprise conviction for murder.
Issue:
Misapplication of the law of joint enterprise in the trial court.
Decision:
Supreme Court quashed conviction, clarifying that foresight is not sufficient for secondary liability.
Significance:
Appeals correct errors of law and misdirection.
Demonstrates the Supreme Court’s role in clarifying legal principles.
Case 4: R v. Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75
Facts:
Criminal appeal challenging conviction for consensual harm.
Decision:
Appeal dismissed; established limits on consent as a defense.
Significance:
Shows that criminal appeals can reassess legal principles while leaving trial facts largely undisturbed.
4. Procedural Remedies via Judicial Review
Judicial review (JR) allows courts to supervise public authorities, ensuring legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness.
Grounds for Judicial Review
Illegality – Authority acted outside powers.
Procedural impropriety – Denial of fair hearing.
Irrationality/Wednesbury unreasonableness – Decisions are so unreasonable no reasonable authority would make them.
Case 5: Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (GCHQ Case)
Facts:
Government banned union membership for security reasons.
Employees challenged procedural unfairness.
Decision:
Judicial review available for procedural impropriety, even in high-level government decisions.
Significance:
Established JR remedies for administrative procedural errors.
Case 6: R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly [2001] 2 AC 532
Facts:
Prison regulations allowed cell searches without prisoner presence.
Issue:
Claim that this violated procedural fairness and human rights.
Decision:
Court of Appeal, confirmed by House of Lords, held the regulation unlawful.
Significance:
Judicial review ensures procedural safeguards in public decision-making.
Case 7: R v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213
Facts:
NHS promised a care home for disabled patients but later withdrew the promise.
Decision:
Judicial review quashed the withdrawal; legitimate expectation was violated.
Significance:
Remedies can require public authorities to fulfill legitimate expectations, beyond quashing decisions.
5. Other Procedural Remedies
Certiorari – Quashes unlawful decisions (common in JR).
Prohibition – Stops inferior courts from exceeding jurisdiction.
Mandamus – Orders a public body to perform a duty.
Injunctions and Damages – Available in civil proceedings for breach of rights.
Case 8: R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119
Facts:
Appeal to House of Lords regarding extradition of Pinochet.
Decision:
Decision quashed due to bias of a judge.
Significance:
Shows that procedural impropriety and judicial bias are strong grounds for quashing decisions.
Case 9: R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5
Facts:
Government attempted to trigger Article 50 without Parliament approval.
Decision:
Supreme Court held government acted ultra vires; judicial review granted.
Significance:
Confirms judicial review can enforce procedural compliance of executive powers, even in politically sensitive matters.
6. Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Year | Type | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smith v Hughes | 1960 | Civil Appeal | Appeals correct errors of law/fact |
| Swain v Hillman | 2001 | Civil Appeal | Procedural fairness in striking out claims |
| R v Jogee | 2016 | Criminal Appeal | Misapplication of law corrected |
| R v Brown | 1993 | Criminal Appeal | Appeal clarifies legal principles |
| CCSU v Minister (GCHQ) | 1985 | JR | Procedural impropriety grounds |
| Daly | 2001 | JR | Prisoner rights & procedural fairness |
| Coughlan | 2001 | JR | Legitimate expectation enforced |
| Pinochet No 2 | 2000 | JR | Judicial bias quashes decisions |
| Miller | 2017 | JR | Ultra vires acts quashed |
7. Conclusion
Appeals in the UK are hierarchical and focus on errors of law, fact, or procedural fairness.
Procedural remedies via judicial review provide oversight over public authorities, ensuring legality and fairness.
UK courts balance finality of trial decisions with the need to correct injustice, using remedies like certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and injunctions.
Landmark cases illustrate the application of appeal rights and remedies in civil, criminal, and administrative law.
RELATED Blog
comments