michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,866
Likes: 2,762
|
Appeal
Oct 7, 2019 13:35:00 GMT
Post by michaelc on Oct 7, 2019 13:35:00 GMT
This one for those interested in legal matters and something I've never understood.
I had always thought that a decision of a court would/should normally be appealed if there are procedural issues or issues with the fairness of the decision of the first court. Presumably in the interests of efficiency if nothing else, it is not desirable that most decisions work their way up the court hierarchy but are dealt with by the first court?
As a very much lay person, it seems to me that almost every decision one reads about in the press ends up getting appealed by the losing side.
Is it practically the case that if you have access to huge resources, then you can start in a lower court and if you don't agree with the decision then come up with some grounds or other on which to appeal and keep going to Supreme court or European court as appropriate? Judges don't seem to refuse leave to appeal very often.
Should it be like this? If it was working well, what percentage of cases would we expect to be appealed?
Please note, whilst there have been some high profile brexit related cases like this there are many many others that have nothing to do with brexit and it is not my intention to discuss anything to do with brexit in this thread (there is another one for that !).
|
|
|
Post by propman on Oct 16, 2019 12:59:44 GMT
I am aware of many cases where no leave has been given to appeal. Where there is a legitimate public interest, then leave is usually granted, so cases making the papers usually get leave to appeal. generally it has to be the Court who made the decision or the Court to which you are requesting that the Appeal is dealt who have to grant leave to Appeal.
|
|