NCJ Number
86060
Date Published
1980
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This paper conference compares the appellate process in England and the United States with that in Ontario, Canada, with attention to court delay factors and reform measures.
Abstract
Different approaches are taken regarding appeals in the three jurisdictions. In England, counsel make their submissions to the court on the hearing appeal, and there is opportunity for full oral argument. In the majority of cases, judgment is delivered at the conclusion of the argument. In the United States each party files a written brief, and oral argument is regarded as a supplement to emphasize the written presentation. The procedure in Ontario is somewhat similar to that in England except that a statement of fact and law has to be filed by the appellant before the hearing. The greatest cause of delay in the appellate process is the time required for the transcription of evidence and the other proceedings. It is difficult to pinpoint factors leading to the increased caseload in the Ontario appellate courts. Population and economic activity have not proved to be the primary factors. The rise in the crime rate and police enforcement practices must be considered. There should be reluctance to adopt any measures which will reduce the quality of justice as long as the court can keep abreast of the caseload. Measures adopted in England, such as the leave procedure in criminal appeals and the loss of time in custody, and increased use of staff attorneys in the United States were necessitated by overwhelming caseloads. At present, such practices are not indicated in Ontario, but the appellate courts must be aware of the need for consistent efficiency. Twenty-two footnotes are provided.