Appeals

[kat]

I have been reading about the Carina Trimingham case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/24/carina-trimingham-privacy-case-daily-mail

I says that
1) the judge refused her permission to appeal
2) she intends to appeal

How does she do that is she has already been told she can't? Does she first
appeal against the refusal of permission?


--
kat
>^..^<

[Francis Davey]

No. In this particular situation she can appeal with permission either of the lower court or the appeal court, so she will ask the appeal court for permission to appeal.

There are cases where the lower court can block an appeal - and it is very difficult to challenge such decisions since they are generally unappealable - but this is not one of them.

So a lower court might decide to push something up, the upper court can decide to allow something up. Both are useful.

Francis

[kat]

Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> said

> Le vendredi 25 mai 2012 09:25:02 UTC+1, kat a écrit :
>> I have been reading about the Carina Trimingham case.
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/24/carina-trimingham-privacy-case-daily-mail
>>
>> I says that
>> 1) the judge refused her permission to appeal
>> 2) she intends to appeal
>>
>> How does she do that is she has already been told she can't? Does
>> she first appeal against the refusal of permission?
>
> No. In this particular situation she can appeal with permission
> either of the lower court or the appeal court, so she will ask the
> appeal court for permission to appeal.

A sort of appeal against the refusal then.:-)

>
> There are cases where the lower court can block an appeal - and it is
> very difficult to challenge such decisions since they are generally
> unappealable - but this is not one of them.
>
> So a lower court might decide to push something up, the upper court
> can decide to allow something up. Both are useful.
>

So what is the point of a judge refusing permission if he can be so easily
ignored? Will his refusal be taken into account?


--
kat
>^..^<

[Jethro_uk]

IIRC, you can't just appeal because you don't like the verdict. You need
to have specific reasons, usually a prima facia demonstration that there
was a point of law erroneously applied (or denied), usually with the
judges agreement that it merits further investigation by a higher court -
in which case he would grant permission.

At the end of the day, it seems the public don't quite "get" the law. To
go to court is (and should be seen) as the last resort in any situation.
Why ? Because what higher authority is there ? This is why judges rightly
rain down disapproval on cases - civil or criminal - where the two
parties could have sorted it out *before* court. This is why it behoves
us all to respect the law and courts, and demonstrate such respect - at
least by demonstrating we appreciate we have entered the highest level of
society. This is why court rulings are treated with such gravity, and to
ignore them, or treat them with contempt is considered a grave
transgression. To appeal a courts ruling is to fly in the face of that,
and therefore needs to be based on very good grounds - this is the area
where you *really* need a lawyer.

[The Todal]

It is plainly a case which raises important issues that would interest
the Court of Appeal. A single judge in the CA will make up his own mind
without being influenced by the opinion of the trial judge. I think (I
may be wrong) that a first instance judge only gives permission to
appeal if he feels that he could easily have reached a different
decision, the issues are finely balanced and the law is uncertain. Here,
the judge probably wanted to make it clear that he was happy with his
decision.

[kat]

The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> said

Fair enough, but why is it a case with important issues?


--
kat
>^..^<

[GB]

The Todal wrote:
> I think (I
> may be wrong) that a first instance judge only gives permission to
> appeal if he feels that he could easily have reached a different
> decision, the issues are finely balanced and the law is uncertain.
> Here, the judge probably wanted to make it clear that he was happy with
> his
> decision.

The way it was explained to me is that leave to appeal can only be granted
by the Court of Appeal if an earlier application has already been made to
the lower court. By dealing with leave to appeal at the original trial, the
trial judge shortens the process of applying to the Court of Appeal for
permission.



--
Register as an organ donor with the NHS online. It takes 1 minute and
saves you carrying an organ donor card with you.
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/how_to_become_a_donor.jsp

[The Todal]

On 25/5/12 13:35, GB wrote:
> The Todal wrote:
>> I think (I
>> may be wrong) that a first instance judge only gives permission to
>> appeal if he feels that he could easily have reached a different
>> decision, the issues are finely balanced and the law is uncertain.
>> Here, the judge probably wanted to make it clear that he was happy with
>> his
>> decision.
>
> The way it was explained to me is that leave to appeal can only be granted
> by the Court of Appeal if an earlier application has already been made to
> the lower court. By dealing with leave to appeal at the original trial, the
> trial judge shortens the process of applying to the Court of Appeal for
> permission.
>

Yes, but the question then is, on what basis does the trial judge decide
whether or not to give leave to appeal? In my limited experience of such
things, it is when he acknowledges that the result was a close thing.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "The Todal" wrote in message news:a291f5...@mid.individual.net...

The most obvious situation in which the trial judge would grant leave is if
he has felt bound by a previous decision of the appeal court, so that the
higher curt would be able to depart from its own precedent.

My understanding is that most High Court judges will decline leave to
appeal - after all, you would expect them to have confidence in their own
decisions and they certainly do not encourage doubt. A single Lord Justice
will have the arguments set out for him, so he is in a much better position
to judge the merits of an appeal. In some cases the application for leave
and the actual appeal are dealt with together.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[The Todal]

That's for her lawyers to argue. It seems to me to be an important
precedent in relation to the tort of harassment. From her point of view,
it might be seen as a rather unsatisfactory judgment because it suggests
that there is no harassment if (a)you are an MP's press agent (b) you
are his lover (c) you have disclosed some information about yourself (d)
you have, as a journalist, disclosed sensitive information about other
people.

Also that insulting words are protected by a newspaper's right to
freedom of expression. That must surely be a question of degree, and it
is at least aguable that statements such as these are nothing to do with
freedom of expression and are attempts to ridicule her for the sake of
it. Some of the comments were made on a website by readers.

big strong girl unlucky not to catch the England rugby selectors' eyes
for inclusion in the World Cup squad

It always surprises me when men leave their wives for uglier women

he will have to live with a lying cheating manipulative Lesbian who
looks like a horse

The judge says "The comments include a number that are insulting and
offensive. These are unreasonable in the ordinary meaning of that word,
but not so unreasonable that it is necessary and proportionate to
prohibit their publication. I note that the number of comments
complained of forms a very small proportion of the total number of
comments posted by readers, and that other comments were in a different
tone, some supportive of Ms Trimingham."

[kat]

I tend to agree with the judge about much of that. Merely as a press agent,
she could do as she liked, I would have thought, no-one wold care about her
love life, but as a press agent who colluded in misrepresentation about his
happy family life when she was part of the story, she did put herself in the
firing line.

>
> Also that insulting words are protected by a newspaper's right to
> freedom of expression. That must surely be a question of degree, and
> it is at least aguable that statements such as these are nothing to do
> with freedom of expression and are attempts to ridicule her for the sake
> of
> it. Some of the comments were made on a website by readers.
>
> big strong girl unlucky not to catch the England rugby selectors' eyes
> for inclusion in the World Cup squad
>
> It always surprises me when men leave their wives for uglier women
>
> he will have to live with a lying cheating manipulative Lesbian who
> looks like a horse
>
> The judge says "The comments include a number that are insulting and
> offensive. These are unreasonable in the ordinary meaning of that
> word, but not so unreasonable that it is necessary and proportionate to
> prohibit their publication. I note that the number of comments
> complained of forms a very small proportion of the total number of
> comments posted by readers, and that other comments were in a
> different tone, some supportive of Ms Trimingham."

While I realise the paper could have taken down all nasty comments, that
would have looked a little biassed. At least with reader comments the
journalists didn't write them. I won't repeat what my husband said of her
looks.

I also note she didn't sue for defamation, so nothing the paper wrote was
untrue, I assume.

But all that is by the way. I just wondered how one appealed when the judge
refused permission, and while I now know I still think it odd. I understand
the whole idea of a judge suggesting an appeal, but if he cannot actually
prevent it, why bother to say anything?


--
kat
>^..^<

[The Todal]

It must be extremely unpleasant to find that suddenly you are under
attack from the Press and can do nothing at all to prevent them calling
you names, merely because you have done what millions have done and had
a love affair with someone who is already married. The fact that she is
a lesbian was used not to pillory homosexuals but to titillate readers.
A lesbian, having an affair with a man. Who'd have though it? Is she a
real lesbian? Etc.

It isn't as if she has stolen money, cheated on her expenses, listened
in to private voicemails or bribed police officers. Nor has she claimed
to be a paragon of virtue thereby justifying the press in showing her to
be a hypocrite.

So if there is a lesson, it is that if you are the mistress of an
important person who happens to be married, expect to be pilloried
because the British press, in its self-righteous display of morality,
really likes to stick up for wives and put the boot into mistresses. I
suppose Camilla had to face the same sort of venom.

Even if the judge did reach the correct decision (and maybe he did), the
newspapers are still contemptible. They haven't performed a useful
public service, they haven't exposed a scandal, they've just persecuted
someone for being a lesbian and a mistress and for not being attractive
enough for their loutish readers. Perhaps if she had been prettier,
she'd have been given an easier time.

>
> I also note she didn't sue for defamation, so nothing the paper wrote was
> untrue, I assume.
>
> But all that is by the way. I just wondered how one appealed when the judge
> refused permission, and while I now know I still think it odd. I understand
> the whole idea of a judge suggesting an appeal, but if he cannot actually
> prevent it, why bother to say anything?

If the judge had given permission to appeal it would have saved some
time and some legal fees.

[Periander]

On 25-May-2012, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

> It must be extremely unpleasant to find that suddenly you are under
> attack from the Press and can do nothing at all to prevent them calling
> you names, merely because you have done what millions have done and had

> a love affair with someone who is already married. ...

>
> Even if the judge did reach the correct decision (and maybe he did), the
> newspapers are still contemptible. They haven't performed a useful
> public service, they haven't exposed a scandal, they've just persecuted
> someone for being a lesbian and a mistress and for not being attractive
> enough for their loutish readers. Perhaps if she had been prettier,
> she'd have been given an easier time.

Sadly we haven't been agreeing to much recently but I have to say that I
find myself in complete agreement with what you say above. If we move the
context slightly and instead of "newspaper" we substitute "nieghbour",
"private blogger" or the like we're looking at a situation where the
nieghbour would be looking at a punch on the nose or more likely get a
passing police officer reaching for his "Beat officers companion" and
checking the points to prove for harassment before reaching for his
handcuffs.

What I see with cases like this is the newspapers intentionally providing
titillation as this is what the public are interested in and packaging it as
being in the public interest. Two entirely different things. It really is a
fundamental question that needs to be resolved - just how much privacy are
we poor blobs allowed. Sadly it would appear that if our story will make
someone money we're entitled to sweet fanny adams. I hope the appeal process
is successful.

--

All the best,

Periander

[Roland Perry]

In message <a29gg9...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:45:03 on Fri, 25 May
2012, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:

<quote>

>It always surprises me when men leave their wives for uglier women

</unquote>

A remark such as that is so shallow as to devalue any credibility. It's
also deeply insulting to women in general (that the only thing which
might be appealing about them is their "prettiness", and conversely that
all pretty women are easy to get on with).
--
Roland Perry

[steve robinson]

Its amazing how some people kick and scream when the boots on the other
foot.