header-logo header-logo

Appeals system failing women

09 June 2020
Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-detail
Women face particular barriers due to their sex when seeking to overturn unsafe convictions or unfair sentences in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), research has found

Barriers included gendered factors, such as shame and lack of confidence to take on appeals. More than four-fifths (86%) of women writing for advice on appeal were significantly outside of the 28-day appeal window from the date of their conviction or sentence. Reasons for delay included the fact that women often did not feel comfortable revealing their experiences of gendered trauma such as domestic abuse to legal representatives at trial and were afraid of being disbelieved.

More than half the women felt custody was a disproportionate punishment for their crime. One third felt the effect of imprisonment on their children had not been considered by the sentencing judge. More than a quarter felt their pre-sentence report was incorrect or incomplete and complained that their mitigating circumstances were not given appropriate weight at sentencing.

Lawyers told the researchers they feel it has become harder to win cases in the Court of Appeal, and that the court tries to dissuade attempts to appeal. They also raised cuts to legal aid funding, which prevent many women from accessing justice. The statistics back up this perception―between 2011 and 2019, appeal applications to this court fell by 36%.

The research, by APPEAL (a non-profit law practice specialising in criminal appeals), is the first to focus on women’s experiences of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

APPEAL women’s justice advocate and author of the report, Naima Sakande said: ‘This report raises serious questions about whether the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) is a legal body capable of righting wrongs done to women by the criminal justice system. Women who have been unfairly sentenced or wrongfully convicted deserve access to justice.’

Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

London firm announces acquisition of corporate team

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Head of corporate appointed following Teesside merger

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Firm expands into banking and finance sector with newly appointed head of banking

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll