The Grounds
The grounds for appeal do vary and include:
- That new evidence has been brought to light.
- That the defence was ineffectual and therefore the defendant didn't receive a fair trial
- That the verdict was unsafe
New Evidence
Item 1 is probably most clearly demonstrated in the case of the murder of Lesley Molseed, where the innocent man Stefan Kiszko spent 16 years behind bars for a murder he did not commit. It is only when new evidence was brought to light (using more recent DNA methods) that his innocence was pronounced. New evidence tends not to be found in the vast majority of cases, as the initial investigation tends to have been conducted thoroughly. As the cases of both Stefan and Kristian both prove; this isn't always the case.
Ineffectual Defence
Item 2 seems to be one which the legal profession seems unwilling to use. The legal training that is instilled into most aspiring legal professionals stamps out any sense of duty to the client or a personal conscience, and replaces it with a clear-cut obedience to the process and the determination not to question the establishment. Perhaps there is also some self-preservation in here, that if you upset the apple-cart, you are unlikely to progress through your career, and likely spend your days working in a profession that promised lots and delivered little. Is it any wonder that fewer than 20% of law graduates progress into a career as a solicitor or a barrister?
So much for the selfless legal officionado trumpeting the rights of the individual. Alongside this lack of self, it seems that the legal-eagles are inbred with the core belief that one must not challenge another, and that in times of strife, one should support ones colleagues. Questioning the practices of another barrister would be to impune the good word of that legal colleague, and to knock a couple of apples loose. Barristers and solicitors don't call each other friend and learned friend without there being some sort of connection. One wonders how barristers actually conduct court proceedings whilst being hamstrung by this inability to challenge a dear colleague.
As a prole, if is your duty to simply take a number and get in line, and hope that your wallet is thick enough to carry you through the mud.
It is with this in mind that you consider, albeit it in a shoehorned fashion, item number 3; the unsafe verdict.