Sentencing appeals
1. It seemed that sentencing appeal reforms were needed in the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) because of the backlog of criminal sentencing appeals.
2. In February 2011 the Court of Appeal reduced the number of sitting justices to two per case from three, and hired another Judge of Appeal, taking the number from eleven to twelve. The Court also began managing appeals more closely, resulting in 80 cases being dropped for failure to comply with directions. One significant reformwas that specialist criminal lawyers were hired in the Court Registry, and their intensive case management helped with the prompt listing of urgent appeals and a greater number of judgments being handed down on the day of the hearing. Another significant reform was that the barrister who argued the trial was expected to argue the appeal – requiring the trial barrister to appear in the appeal means the Court is benefited by receiving arguments from someone who knows in detail what really happened in the original hearing.
3. The reforms seem to have increased the timeliness of dispute resolution to an extent. Because of the reforms, the number of appeals finalised by the Court jumped from 506 in 2009-10 to 623 in 2010-11. As of 31 December 2011, 259 appeals had been waiting in backlog for more than 12 months to be heard, but this fell to 80 by 1 February 2012 (with 268 appeals waiting to be heard in total).