The “Pre-Hearing”
Not to suggest that the legal system is administratively strangled, but a asthmatic and overweight tabby cat in it's late 40s with a penchant for self-asphixia would probably function easier and quicker. The hearing before the appeal case will decide on the merits of the case and make a decision on whether it is worthy to progress to the full hearing or not.
It is worth bearing in mind a few things here:
- The decision is usually made by a single judge in private, and doesn't involve a specific hearing. Obviously the written submission must be good enough to convince the judge that it is valid to give leave to appeal. It is most unusual to have an open-court hearing before the Single Judge.
- If it is stark staringly obvious that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, the matter can be referred by the Registrar direct to the full court (three judges), bypassing the Single Judge.
- If the Single Judge gives leave to appeal it will go through to the full court. The Single Judge usually decides these cases in private it can happen that a Single Judge hears a case, presented by the appellant's defence barrister in the open court. That is most unusual though.
- If the Single Judge refuses to give leave then all funding is removed (if it was allocated). The applicant then has a few weeks to decide whether to send it to the full court (two or three judges) for leave to appeal or to abandon it. Most of these applications fail if an applicant tries to take this to the full court themselves. Some barristers will agree to work pro bono, if they think there is a fighting chance that leave will be given. Other barristers will have to be paid. Some applications remain "on paper" and usually fail.
- If the full court refuses leave to appeal the next step is the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
- If the full court gives leave to appeal, the matter might be heard immediately afterwards or a separate date is fixed.
There is almost a sense that the hearing is a pre-meeting, which serves no purpose but to add a process into the procedure for the sake of it. Lord Woolf's reports and legislation about access to justice seems to have fallen on deaf ears, and in the true spirit of English bureaucracy, the meetings for the sake of meetings continue.
It is probably worth noting that this little hearing will be unlikely to quash the verdict, but rather will set the verdict aside pending the outcome of a new trial. All the while Kristian is likely to remain in prison.