Fewer than 1% of all convictions in the Crown Court and just 1.3% of sentences are successfully appealed in the Court of Appeal, which should increase public confidence in the criminal justice system.
These were amongst the statistics compiled and conclusions reached in the annual report for the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) for the 2007/08 period.
The review of the legal year was Lord Phillips’ last one as Lord Chief Justice, following his departure to become Senior Law Lord. He reflected on the large volume of legislation during his time as a judge; its impact on the law and on the sentencing process.
Applications to the Court of Appeal showed only a slight increase on the figures for the previous year. In total, 1,541 appeals against conviction and 5,313 appeals against sentence were received, a rise of 60 from 2006/07. Referrals from the Attorney General for unduly lenient sentences fell to 78 cases (from 134 the previous year). The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred 15 cases, and has also undertaken investigations at the direction of the Court of Appeal.
The bare numbers reveal nothing of the variety and complexity of the cases that come before the court. As ever, the Court has applied its collective mind to new legislation, points of law and issued guidance to lower courts on sentencing and case management.
Noteworthy cases in the reporting period have included a judgment which looked afresh at guidance for courts on knife crime ( R –v- Povey & others ), and recommended that Magistrates’ Courts should apply guidelines at the severe end of the range of sentences. Severe deterrent sentences for gun crimes were also recommended in the case of R-v- Crispin , in which an appeal for a reduced sentence was dismissed in strongly worded terms.
The reporting year was also notable for a number of cases relating to terrorism offences, and the Court of Appeal had to deal with some important points of legal principle – for example in R –v- Ibrahim & others it allowed the admission of evidence derived from so-called ‘safety meetings’.
Lord Phillips praised the judges, lawyers and staff working within the Court, for coping with its “frenetic activity.” He also underlined the point that while this was regarded as the norm in this country, waiting times for criminal appeals in many other jurisdictions were much longer:
“Over the last three years I have met with colleagues in other jurisdictions on a number of occasions. They are always astonished when I tell them how speedily we process our criminal appeals. There is no room for complacency, but there is good cause for satisfaction.”
