Skip to main content

Amanda Knox and the English appeal system


We wake up this morning to the news that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been cleared of the murder of Meredith Kercher on appeal.

Having read the news this morning I cannot say exactly why they were cleared because I wasn’t in court to hear the ruling and the press are reporting some very bizarre factors that I cannot imagine were on the minds of the judges.  For example, the BBC  in its 10 factors that helped Knox’s case, lists such things as a “PR campaign” launched from Seattle and the presence of supporters in the courtroom.  I can confidently say that neither of these things would be likely to have any impact upon an English or Welsh court.

Perhaps the most informative thing in the BBC reports are that the Italian justice system has a very lenient appeals system where the court simply investigates the weakest aspect of the prosecution case.  If true then it certainly does explain why Italy has a very low prison population.

In the UK, the appeal court will consider the entire case not just the weakest or strongest aspects of it.  In England and Wales, the Court of Appeal will only interfere in a verdict if they find that the conviction is “unsafe”.  A conviction can be unsafe for any number of reasons, but broadly the two big headlines are new evidence and an error in the trial process.

New evidence must be something that is genuinely new and was not available to the defence at the time of the trial.  This is a very difficult test to overcome.  Often there will be evidence available to both sides that is not used for tactical reasons in the trial.  When this happens the Court of Appeal will assume that the decision not to use the evidence was taken either by the defendant or on his direct instructions.  Showing that this is not the case means saying that your trial lawyers either misled you or did not do their jobs properly.  You may not be surprised to hear that conviencing a bunch of senior lawyers that another bunch of senior lawyers are incompetent isn’t easy and I say that as somebody who has summoned a client’s former defence team (including two QC’s) to give evidence at the Court of Appeal!  If the court decides that he evidence was available and that the defendant chose not to use it then the evidence is highly unlikely to be admitted and the conviction will stand.

An error in the trial process could be anything from inadmissible evidence being adduced before the jury or it could be an error by the judge in directing the jury or during the summing up.

Assuming that you have found either new evidence or a fault in the trial process you are still not home and dry yet!  You still need to show the judges that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the new evidence been available at the trial or if the error had not occurred.

Even those of us who conduct appeals regularly and are good at them can tell stories of cases lost at the last hurdle because while the Court of Appeal accepts there was a serious error by the trial judge they still conclude that the rest of the evidence was sufficient to convict.  It’s a very frustrating thing to have happen.

Would Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been cleared on appeal in England and Wales?  It’s difficult to say but what I am sure about is that they would have had a very difficult time clearing their names in an English appeal court.

Comments

  1. If you had been reading the Daily Mail website last night, you'd have read a somewhat different version.
    http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/daily-mail-guuilt/

    ReplyDelete
  2. The daily mail makes it all up? Fancy that!

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems that they wouldn't have been convicted in the first place in any other court. It seems the Italian system is about lots of convictions in first session and lots of appeals upheld in second session.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…