An Overview of the Criminal Appeal Process
If you feel that you have been wrongly convicted or that your sentence is excessive then you may be considering making an application to appeal. The criminal appeal process can be overwhelming and it is important to ensure you have the correct legal advice and guidance before you begin your appeal application. Our team represent clients at all stages of criminal proceedings, including appeals. When instructed we will provide you with advice on the procedure, likelihood of success and the costs involved in making an application to appeal.
Request a Free Consultation
Appealing a Magistrates Court Decision
If you have been convicted in the Magistrates Court
of sexual
or domestic abuse
then you have an automatic right to appeal the courts decision to the Crown Court within 21 days of conviction (if appealing conviction) or 21 days from the date of sentence (if appealing sentence).
You may want to appeal your conviction because you feel the Magistrates got it wrong, evidence was heard that you believe should not have been, or that evidence was excluded from the trial that should have been heard. It could be a variety of reasons that lead you to wanting to appeal your conviction,
and your legal team would discuss those in detail with you prior to starting the appeal process.
Completing the appeal paperwork would be done by your legal time and we would then continue to liaise with the courts to have the re-hearing of your case listed. Whilst the courts are preparing to list your case we would be working with you during this time to prepare for your re-trial.
When an appeal against conviction from the Magistrates takes place at the Crown Court then the case will be heard afresh by a judge and two lay magistrates who did not have any involvement in your magistrates court trial. New evidence can be admitted during the hearing by either party; yourself and/or the prosecution. Applications can also be made to exclude evidence where necessary.
If you are applying to appeal your sentence, then a Crown Court Judge will consider the sentence made by the Magistrates to determine if it was correct.
Can the Crown Court Increase a Sentence If I Appeal?
The Crown Court Judge hearing an appeal against sentence from the Magistrates Court does have the power to increase the sentence but only to that of the maximum sentence the Magistrates Court have imposed. For example; if the Magistrates Court sentencing powers were limited to 12 months, then the Crown Court could not impose a new sentence in excess of 12 months.
Appealing a Crown Court Decision
If you wish to appeal against a Crown Court conviction or sentence then you have 28 days in which to do this from either the date of conviction, or the date of sentence. It is always our advice to lodge an appeal as soon as possible to avoid having to appeal out of time.
If you do not apply to appeal straight away, or within the 28 day window, then you can appeal later but you will be required to apply for permission to appeal out of time. This will mean that your lawyers completing the application to appeal will have to explain why it is late, with good justification this is rarely a problem.
Grounds to Appeal
Unlike an application to appeal a Magistrates Court decision, you will have to establish grounds to appeal when you are appealing a Crown Court decision, there is no automatic right. Grounds of appeal can include:
- Wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence;
- Failure to properly exercise judicial discretion;
- Conduct of the trial judge;
- Errors in the trial judge's summing up;
- Problems associated with jurors.
Grounds are established by close consideration of the evidence, transcriptions of the original trial and, what you say you feel went wrong during the trial to amount to a right to appeal. All of this information will be gathered initially and reviewed by our lawyers, and in some cases a specialist barrister. We will then provide you with a written advice on appeal which clearly sets out the grounds established with reference to any applicable law.
The Appeal Application Process
Once the application is prepared, we have a written advice on appeal and any supporting documents, then this is lodged with the Registrar of Criminal Appeals. The application will go through an administrative process before it is put before a single judge. The single judge will consider the application and where they agree that there are potential appeal grounds the appeal application will be listed to go before the full Court of Appeal, it is at this hearing the court will hear legal arguments from your defence team, and also the prosecution. The court will then rule on the outcome of the application to appeal. The following outcomes are possible when appealing conviction:
- quash the conviction and, in effect, order an acquittal;
- quash the conviction and order a re-trial;
- or dismiss the appeal
Grounds to Appeal Sentence
To appeal your sentence given by the Crown Court, again, grounds must firstly be established before the application to appeal is made. Potential grounds when appealing sentence include:
- that the judge erred on a matter of principle;
- that the sentence is manifestly excessive; or
- that the sentence was wrong in law.
How we establish grounds is by obtaining a transcript of the sentencing hearing, considering the evidence and the sentence.
The process to appeal sentence to the Court of Appeal is the same as above in that an administrative process will take place first, the application will be considered by a single judge, and then the matter will go before the full Court of Appeal where merit in the appeal application is found.
How Eventum Legal Can Help You
Our team have been successful over many years in appealing convictions and sentences made in both the Magistrates Court and the Crown Court. We work with some of the country's leading barrister when preparing for appeals and apply a no stone unturned approach when considering our clients case for appeal.
If you would like to discuss making an application to appeal, or discuss potential grounds with our lawyers then we would be happy to arrange a free initial consultation with you.
We Can Help With
Have you been charged with indecent image possession? Do you want to know how many cases get dropped? Read our latest article to learn more.
Understanding the difference between “consent” and “reasonable belief” can be key if you are being investigated or prosecuted for a sexual offence, where these two issues can arise. These are not just technical legal terms; they are real-world concepts that can affect the outcome of serious sexual abuse cases. At Eventum Legal, our aim is to help people grasp these important ideas so that they know where they stand, whether they’re seeking justice, facing an accusation, or just wanting to be informed. Consent and the Law: What Does It Mean? When it comes to sexual activity, the law makes it very clear that “consent” isn’t just about saying yes or no. Consent means agreeing by choice, having the freedom and capacity to make that choice, and being able to change your mind at any time, even if the sexual activity has begun. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 states that a person consents if they agree by choice and have the freedom and capacity to do so. In practical terms, this means no one should be pressured, forced, or tricked into sex. If someone is too drunk, too scared, or otherwise unable to decide, they cannot legally give consent. This applies also to issues with mental capacity where someone may not have the understanding or ability to give informed consent. When establishing whether consent or reasonable belief applies, the courts examine everything that happened, how the people involved acted, what was said, their relationship, and whether any threats were made. It’s not about just hearing a yes or no, but about whether the agreement was truly given, freely and knowingly, at the time. Reasonable Belief: The Other Side of the Coin While “consent” focuses on the person on the receiving end of sexual activity, “reasonable belief” is about the perspective of the person accused of the crime. UK law says it’s not enough for someone to claim they thought the other person was consenting. The belief that consent existed must be reasonable; it must meet the standard of what a reasonable person would think in those circumstances. This comes down to two questions: did the accused genuinely believe the other person was consenting, and would a reasonable person, knowing what the accused knew and considering everything that happened, have reached the same conclusion? It’s not a defence to say, “I just thought it was okay,” if evidence, actions, or common sense didn’t back that belief up. Courts look at whether the accused checked for consent, paid attention to what was happening, and took steps to make sure everything was agreed upon. How the Law Applies These Concepts The distinction between consent and reasonable belief matters because everyone is responsible for ensuring that consent is present, not just assuming or hoping it is. The prosecution in a sexual offence case has to prove that there was no consent or that the accused did not have a reasonable belief that consent existed. To judge this, courts examine the context: Were both people sober and able to make decisions? Was there clear, positive agreement? Did one person ignore signs of hesitation or discomfort? In cases where someone is very intoxicated or unable to communicate, the law presumes that there is no consent, and it is challenging for anyone to claim a reasonable belief otherwise. However, where alcohol is in question the issue can become complex as we all have difference alcohol tolerances, what may be too drunk to one person, could be different to the other. Therefore, working to establish the intoxication and affect is crucial for lawyers in some cases. In cases where it can be proven that that someone was too drunk to speak or move, and the accused says they thought there was consent just because the person didn’t say “no,” the court is unlikely to accept that as reasonable. The law expects people to check in with their partner, look for positive signs, and stop if there’s any doubt. Clearing Up Common Myths Many misunderstandings exist about how consent and reasonable belief work in real life. One myth is that if someone doesn’t say “no,” they must have agreed. The absence of a “no” is not the same as a “yes.” Another myth is that if two people are in a relationship or have had sex before, consent is always assumed. Every sexual act requires consent, every time. Some people also believe that as long as they honestly thought there was consent, that’s enough. But the law sets a higher bar: the belief has to be reasonable, meaning it must be backed up by what happened and what a reasonable person would think. In our digital age, misunderstandings can easily happen through text or online communication. Courts are aware of this and look at all available evidence, including messages and social media, to determine what happened. Other avenues of evidence exploration can include CCTV footage and witnesses. Why These Legal Standards Matter The way UK law approaches consent and reasonable belief has changed over time. In the past, people could argue they had an “honest” belief in consent, even if it wasn’t reasonable. That changed with the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which now requires honesty and reasonableness. This protects people from harm and ensures that the law takes the experiences and choices of everyone involved seriously. These rules are designed to keep people safe and ensure everyone’s rights are respected. The law encourages open communication, respect, and responsibility. It expects everyone to look for clear signs of agreement and to stop if there is any doubt or hesitation. What To Do If You’re Involved In A Sexual Offence Case Suppose you’re facing a situation involving consent or reasonable belief and you as the accused want to prove that either of these legal requirements existed, then you must seek legal advice and engage with specialist lawyers who can navigate the complexities of the key legal issues in sexual offence cases. These cases can be stressful and complex, and every detail matters: what was said, what was done, and what steps were taken to ensure everyone agreed. At Eventum Legal, we specialise in helping people understand their rights and responsibilities. We listen, explain your options in straightforward language, and support you throughout the process, always with respect and confidentiality. Whether you’re seeking justice, defending your reputation, or simply want to know your rights, we’re here to help. Frequently Asked Questions What is the difference between consent and reasonable belief? Consent is when a person freely agrees to a sexual act. Reasonable belief is whether the accused genuinely and reasonably believed that consent was given, based on all the facts. Can someone be convicted if they misunderstood consent? Yes, if their belief in consent wasn’t reasonable. The court looks at the whole situation, not just what the accused thought. How can I protect myself or prove consent? Open communication and ensuring everyone is comfortable and willing are the safest approaches. If you’re worried about misunderstandings, keep records of conversations. Where can I get help or advice? Contact Eventum Legal for confidential, expert support tailored to your needs.
Have you been accused of breaching your SHPO, maybe by accident or knowingly? Speak to our specialist team.
