Higher Courts Appeals

Rights of Appeal

A person who is convicted of an offence enjoys a right of appeal to a higher court.  District Court convictions may be appealed to the Circuit Court.

Circuit Criminal Court, Special Criminal Court, and Central Criminal Court convictions may be appealed to the Court of Appeal (formerly the Court of Criminal Appeal).

There is the possibility of a further right of appeal on an important point of law to the Supreme Court.

Appeal from Higher Courts

The appeal from the higher criminal courts, the Circuit Criminal Courts, Central Criminal Court and Special Criminal Court, formerly required a certificate from the judge.   Alternatively, the Court of Appeal could give leave to appeal and could hear the application for the leave to appeal as the appeal itself. This no longer applies.

The Court of Appeal does not rehear the case. It bases its decision on the transcript and other materials.

The Court of Appeal may not simply substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the jury.  If there is credible evidence to support the jury’s verdict then it should not interfere unless the verdict is perverse.

2009 Act  removes the requirement for a certificate from the judge and allows a right of appeal

The Court of Appeal may affirm a conviction, reverse it, or vary it.  It may reduce or increase sentence. The Court of Appeal does not rehear the case.

Orders by Court of Appeal

The Constitution provides that with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as may prescribed by law, it shall have appellate jurisdiction from decisions of the High Court and such other courts as may be prescribed by law.

On hearing an appeal against a conviction, the court may

• affirm the conviction notwithstanding that it is of the opinion that the point raised on the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant if it considers the no miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.
• quash the conviction and make no further order, or
• order a retrial for the same offence.

If the Court of Appeal quashes a conviction, but from the facts proved,  on which the jury must have been satisfied, the appellant could have been found guilty of another offence,  it may substitute a verdict convicting the accused of the other offence and impose ae sentence in substitution for the sentence imposed as may be authorised.

In hearing an appeal against the sentence,  the Court of Appeal may quash the sentence and, in its place, impose such sentence or orders as it considers appropriate, being a sentence or order which could have been imposed on the convicted person for the offence.  This possibility, which may lead to a high sentence, was first provided by the Criminal Procedure Act 1993.

Where the appeal is based on new or additional evidence, it may direct the Garda Commissioner to make inquiries as the court considers necessary for the purpose of determining whether further evidence should be adduced.  It may order the production of documents.  It may order persons who would have been compellable as witnesses to attend for examination and the court may receive such evidence.  Generally, it may make such order as is necessary for the purpose of doing justice in the case.

Substituted Verdict

If the Court of Appeal quashes a conviction, but from the facts proved,  on which the jury must have been satisfied, the appellant could have been found guilty of another offence,  it may substitute a verdict convicting the accused of the other offence and impose a sentence in substitution for the sentence imposed as may be authorised.

The Court of Appeal may not simply substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the jury.  If there is credible evidence to support the jury’s verdict, then it should not interfere unless the verdict is perverse.

In hearing an appeal against the sentence,  the Court of Appeal may quash the sentence and, in its place, impose such sentence or orders as it considers appropriate, being a sentence or order which could have been imposed on the convicted person for the offence.  This possibility, which may lead to a high sentence, was first provided by the Criminal Procedure Act 1993.

Supreme Court

There is an appeal from the Court of Appeal on a point of law to the Supreme Court.  There is a provision for a case stated from the Circuit Court analogous to that in respect of the District Court directly to the Supreme Court.

An appeal against refusal of bail by the High Court on a Habeas Corpus application lies to the Supreme Court.  Similarly, if there is a judicial review to the High Court in respect of a lower court decision, there was an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Appeal by Prosecution

The Director of Public Prosecutions may appeal a sentence which is unduly lenient.  The application is made on notice to the convicted person within 28 days or such longer period up to 56 days as may be allowed by the Court.  On application, the court may substitute a longer (or shorter) sentence.

Where a person is acquitted on indictment, the Attorney General or DPP may appeal against orders for costs made by the trial judge against them to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

There is provision for a case stated from the Circuit Court analogous to that in respect of the District Court directly to the  Court of Appeal.

Other Appeals

An appeal against refusal of bail by the High Court on a Habeas Corpus application lies to the Court of Appeal.  Similarly, if there is a judicial review to the High Court in respect of a lower court decision, there was an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Formerly the courts held there was a direct right of appeal from the Central Criminal Court to the Supreme Court as well as to the Court of Appeal.  This anomaly was abolished in 1993.  It arose because the Central Criminal Court is technically the High Court so that the constitutional right of appeal was held to apply and had not been explicitly precluded.

Appeal CA to SC

There is generally no appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal   There is an appeal to the Supreme Court, if that court or the Attorney General or DPP certifies that the decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it is desirable in the public interest that the person take an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Attorney General or DPP may in relation to an appeal, and without prejudice to the decision in favour of the accused, appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, if  it involves a point of exceptional public importance and the appeal is desirable in the public interest.

In case of the latter appeal, Counsel may appear on behalf of the accused to do so wishes or by a Counsel so assigned if the accused waives his right to be represented or heard.