Embolalia wrote:For the first case, I refer you to what I said before. Presumably the defendant has some reason
why they believe they should not have been convicted. It is that, not the verdict, which is truly the grounds for appeal. I don't claim to know every legal system in the world, but to my knowledge "I shouldn't have been found guilty because I say so, even though I have no legitimate reason why the trial or evidence was unfair" is not grounds for appeal.
I believe the same would hold for the latter two cases, as well. If the judge was fair, the facts were straight, the decision was correctly based in the law, and there are no other
reasons why the verdict was improper, that would not be grounds for appeal.
In short, "I don't like it" is not the grounds for the appeal. It goes without question; if you're appealing, you obviously didn't like the verdict. The reason for which you did not like the verdict is your grounds for appeal.
The "I don't like it" (as you call it) appeal route is the entire basis on which appeals are made! the Prosecutor can appeal sentence because it was too lenient (and therefore, because he didn't like it), appeals can be made because the parties don't like how facts were construed. Parties may also appeal sentence and the fact that they were convicted. As part of my Response Brief, I provide evidence, from the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, as well as other founding documents of various real-world tribunals.
From the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia's Statute
Article 25
Appellate proceedings
1. The Appeals Chamber shall hear appeals from persons convicted by the Trial Chambers or from the Prosecutor on the following grounds:
(a) an error on a question of law invalidating the decision; or
(b) an error of fact which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
The ICTY is a hybrid common-civil law Tribunal. Now, as a comparison, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence from the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia - which is based on civil law - states:
Rule 104. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Chamber
(Amended on 5 September 2008, 6 March 2009 and 9 February 2010)
1. The Supreme Court Chamber shall decide an appeal against a judgment or a decision of the Trial Chamber on the following grounds:
a) an error on a question of law invalidating the judgment or decision; or
b) an error of fact which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
I therefore think that the "I don't like it" (as you call it) route of appeal is very common, and the only form of appeal used in these situations. I reinforce this by citing the International Criminal Court's Rules of Procedure and Evidence:
Rule 150
Appeal
...an appeal against a decision of conviction or acquittal under
article 74, a sentence under article 76 or a reparation order under article 75 may be filed...
Rules on appeal according to the Rome Statute:
Article 81
Appeal against decision of acquittal or conviction or against sentence
1. A decision under article 74 may be appealed in accordance with the Rules of Procedure
and Evidence as follows:
(a) The Prosecutor may make an appeal on any of the following grounds:
(i) Procedural error,
(ii) Error of fact, or
(iii) Error of law;
(b) The convicted person, or the Prosecutor on that person's behalf, may make an
appeal on any of the following grounds:
(i) Procedural error,
(ii) Error of fact,
(iii) Error of law, or
(iv) Any other ground that affects the fairness or reliability of the
proceedings or decision.
2. (a) A sentence may be appealed, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence, by the Prosecutor or the convicted person on the ground of
disproportion between the crime and the sentence;
We further submit - regarding review of sentences, that the following Evidence shall prove that reviews of sentences - which is another way of appealing sentence - is permitted:
Article 84
Revision of conviction or sentence
1. The convicted person or, after death, spouses, children, parents or one person alive at the time of the accused's death who has been given express written instructions from the accused to bring such a claim, or the Prosecutor on the person's behalf, may apply to the Appeals Chamber to revise the final judgement of conviction or sentence on the
grounds that:
(a) New evidence has been discovered that:
(i) Was not available at the time of trial, and such unavailability was not
wholly or partially attributable to the party making application; and
(ii) Is sufficiently important that had it been proved at trial it would have
been likely to have resulted in a different verdict;
(b) It has been newly discovered that decisive evidence, taken into account at trial and upon which the conviction depends, was false, forged or falsified;
(c) One or more of the judges who participated in conviction or confirmation
of the charges has committed, in that case, an act of serious misconduct or
serious breach of duty of sufficient gravity to justify the removal of that judge or those judges from office under article 46.
I await your Reply.
Klause Uliyan PC
Former Justice of the Federal Court of Criminal Appeals
Presidential Counsel
Chief Ambassador and Head of the Delegate's legal team
ps. Are you trying to tell us that in Embolalia, no one is permitted to appeal once a judgement is finite?