Effectiveness Of Criminal Appeals Processes
Effectiveness of Criminal Appeals Processes
The criminal appeals process allows convicted individuals to challenge a conviction or sentence in a higher court. Its purpose is to:
Ensure justice is served fairly.
Correct errors in law or procedure made at trial.
Strengthen public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Provide an opportunity for review of new evidence or legal principles.
In Canada, criminal appeals are governed by:
Criminal Code Part XX (s. 675–686, appeals to superior courts and Supreme Court).
Provincial Court of Appeal for most indictable offenses.
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) for cases raising important legal questions or errors of law.
1. Key Grounds for Criminal Appeals
Error of Law – Misinterpretation of the law by trial judge.
Error of Fact – Jury or judge made a factual finding contrary to evidence.
Procedural Irregularities – Violation of Charter rights (ss. 7–11).
Excessive or Inadequate Sentences – Sentencing errors or improper consideration of aggravating/mitigating factors.
New Evidence – Evidence that could significantly affect outcome.
Effectiveness depends on whether appeals correct wrongful convictions, clarify law, and maintain fairness without undermining finality.
2. Case Studies on Criminal Appeals in Canada
Case 1: R v. Oickle, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3 – False Confession and Charter Rights
Facts:
Accused confessed under police interrogation.
Argued confession was coerced and violated s. 7 (right to life, liberty, security) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel).
Appeal Outcome:
SCC ruled confession admissible; coercion threshold not met.
Clarified legal test for voluntariness in confessions.
Effectiveness:
Appeal clarified law on police interrogation, protecting both accused rights and admissible evidence standards.
Case 2: R v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199 – Right to Trial within Reasonable Time
Facts:
Accused’s trial delayed for over two years.
Argued violation of s. 11(b) (right to be tried within reasonable time).
Appeal Outcome:
SCC overturned conviction, ordered stay of proceedings.
Established guidelines for unreasonable delay in criminal trials.
Effectiveness:
Set precedent to prevent prolonged trials, ensuring justice is not denied by delay.
Significantly impacted Canadian criminal procedure, reinforcing timely access to justice.
Case 3: R v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 – Modern Framework for Trial Delays
Facts:
Accused waited 49 months for trial (provincial) and 30 months (superior court).
Argued s. 11(b) Charter violation due to delay.
Appeal Outcome:
SCC created presumptive ceilings: 18 months for provincial, 30 months for superior courts.
Conviction stayed due to delay exceeding ceiling.
Effectiveness:
Provides clear, enforceable standard for criminal trials.
Shows appeals can modernize and improve procedural fairness in criminal justice.
Case 4: R v. Starr, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144 – Hearsay and Reliability of Evidence
Facts:
Conviction based on hearsay statements of a child witness.
Defense appealed on evidentiary grounds, claiming reliability was insufficient.
Appeal Outcome:
SCC set out principles for assessing reliability of hearsay evidence.
Conviction upheld after reviewing trial judge’s application of law.
Effectiveness:
Appeals refine legal standards for admissibility, protecting fairness while preserving proper convictions.
Case 5: R v. Hape, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292 – Charter Application Abroad
Facts:
Accused arrested in the Bahamas, evidence seized.
Argued Canadian Charter rights violated due to improper foreign investigation.
Appeal Outcome:
SCC clarified extraterritorial application of Charter.
Conviction affirmed; evidence admissible due to foreign legal process compliance.
Effectiveness:
Appeals clarify jurisdictional boundaries, preventing future legal uncertainty in international investigations.
Case 6: R v. Ruzic, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687 – Charter Section 7 & Extraterritorial Offenses
Facts:
Accused extradited for drug-related charges; argued extradition violated s. 7 (right to life, liberty, security).
Appeal Outcome:
SCC considered fair trial rights vs. foreign prosecution.
Conviction affected by procedural safeguards applied in appeals.
Effectiveness:
Demonstrates appeal process ensures balance between fairness, international law, and national legal principles.
Case 7: R v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 – Sentencing Appeals and Indigenous Offenders
Facts:
Accused Indigenous offenders challenged length of sentences for violent crimes.
Appeal Outcome:
SCC ruled sentencing must consider unique circumstances of Indigenous offenders, including systemic factors.
Effectiveness:
Appeals enforce judicial discretion in sentencing, improving justice for marginalized groups.
Highlights corrective role of appellate courts in achieving fairness.
3. Key Principles Highlighted by Case Law
Protection of Charter Rights – Appeals are critical for enforcing constitutional protections (Askov, Jordan, Ruzic).
Legal Clarification – Appeals refine interpretation of law (Oickle, Starr).
Correcting Procedural Errors – Ensures trials are fair and evidence admissible (Hape).
Sentencing Review – Appeals correct overly harsh or inappropriate sentences (Ipeelee).
Public Confidence – Demonstrates system is willing to correct errors and uphold justice.
4. Effectiveness Assessment
Strengths:
Protects individual rights.
Corrects errors in law or procedure.
Provides authoritative guidance for future cases.
Limitations:
Appeals may be lengthy and costly, delaying finality.
Not all errors are reviewable (some discretionary decisions remain with trial court).
Success often depends on the quality of legal representation and preservation of issues at trial.
Overall:
The criminal appeals process is largely effective in correcting miscarriages of justice, refining legal principles, and ensuring fairness, while also maintaining the finality of convictions where appropriate.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Appeal Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Oickle | 2000 | Coerced confession | Conviction upheld | Clarified voluntariness in confessions |
| R v. Askov | 1990 | Trial delay | Conviction stayed | Established unreasonable delay principles |
| R v. Jordan | 2016 | Modern trial delay | Conviction stayed | Introduced presumptive ceilings for delays |
| R v. Starr | 2000 | Hearsay evidence | Conviction upheld | Refined hearsay reliability standards |
| R v. Hape | 2007 | Evidence abroad | Conviction upheld | Clarified extraterritorial Charter application |
| R v. Ruzic | 2001 | Extradition | Conviction affected | Balanced fair trial and international law |
| R v. Ipeelee | 2012 | Sentencing | Conviction reviewed | Ensured Indigenous offenders’ circumstances considered |
RELATED Blog
comments