How the Appeals System Works in England and Wales

Appeals are not a second trial

A common misconception is that an appeal gives you a fresh go at your case, with new evidence and a chance to re-argue the facts. It almost never works that way. Appeal courts generally do not rehear a case from scratch. Instead, they review whether the original decision was wrong in law, wrong in principle, or outside the range of reasonable outcomes available to the judge, jury or tribunal that made it.

This matters because it shapes what an appeal can achieve. If a judge heard the witnesses, weighed the evidence and reached a conclusion that was open to them on the facts, an appeal court will usually leave that conclusion alone even if it might have decided differently itself. Appeals exist to correct legal errors and serious procedural unfairness, not to give the losing side a second bite of the cherry because they are unhappy with the result.

Permission to appeal

In most civil and criminal matters in England and Wales, you cannot simply appeal because you disagree with the outcome. You typically need permission (sometimes called leave) to appeal, either from the court that made the original decision or from the appeal court itself.

Permission acts as a filter. The test usually asks whether the appeal has a realistic prospect of success, or whether there is some other compelling reason for it to be heard, such as an important point of law that needs clarifying. Filing an appeal within a limited time window is essential. Deadlines are strict and short, often measured in days or a few weeks from the decision or from when written reasons are provided, and courts are generally reluctant to extend them without good reason. Anyone considering an appeal should check the current time limits and forms for their specific court or tribunal.

The civil route: from first instance to the Court of Appeal

Civil cases usually start in the County Court or the High Court. An appeal from a decision made there generally goes up one level, for example from a District Judge to a Circuit Judge, or from the High Court to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Which route applies depends on the seniority of the judge who made the original decision and the nature of the case.

The Court of Appeal sits above the High Court and County Court and hears appeals on points of law or principle. It works from the trial record, written skeleton arguments and oral submissions from advocates rather than reheating witness evidence. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is required and is refused far more often than it is granted, because the court exists to deal with cases that raise a genuine legal issue, not simply cases where one side feels aggrieved.

The criminal route

Criminal appeals follow a different structure depending on where the case was tried. Appeals from the Magistrates’ Court usually go to the Crown Court for a rehearing on fact and law, or to the High Court by way of case stated on a point of law. Appeals from the Crown Court against conviction or sentence go to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), which considers whether a conviction is unsafe or a sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, again subject to permission.

The threshold for overturning a criminal conviction is deliberately high. The system places significant weight on the jury’s assessment of the evidence, so an appeal generally succeeds only where something went wrong with the process, the law was misapplied, or fresh evidence undermines the safety of the verdict.

The Supreme Court and the end of the line

Above the Court of Appeal sits the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which hears a small number of cases each year that raise points of law of general public importance. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is granted sparingly, and many applications are refused. Cases that reach this level often go on to shape the law for everyone, not just the parties involved, which is why the bar is set so high.

Tribunals and judicial decisions outside the ordinary courts

Many disputes, from immigration and social security to tax and regulatory matters, are decided by tribunals rather than courts. These have their own appeal structures, typically a First-tier Tribunal followed by an Upper Tribunal, with further appeal to the Court of Appeal possible on a point of law and again subject to permission. The principle is the same across the system: the further up the chain you go, the more the focus narrows to legal error rather than a fresh look at the facts.

Why this matters in practice

Because appeals are hard to bring and harder to win, lawyers generally advise clients to think carefully before committing time and money to one. A realistic assessment early on, of whether there is an arguable legal error rather than just an unwelcome result, saves considerable expense. Costs can also work against an unsuccessful appellant, since losing an appeal can mean paying the other side’s costs on top of your own.

Anyone facing a decision they consider wrong should get advice quickly, given how tight the deadlines are, and should check the current rules, forms and fees with the relevant court or tribunal service rather than relying on general assumptions about how appeals work.

Where to check current rules

For up-to-date procedure, forms and time limits, consult the official sources directly rather than relying on secondhand summaries.