Identifying a “Miscarriage of Justice”: Factors Influencing a Successful Appeal Against a Guilty Plea Conviction in Australia

• Published date: 01 August 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/08874034231162776
• Author: Caitlin Nash,Rachel Dioso-Villa,Louise Porter
• Date: 01 August 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034231162776

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2023, Vol. 34(4) 361 –386

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/08874034231162776

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Identifying a “Miscarriage of

Justice”: Factors Influencing

a Successful Appeal Against

a Guilty Plea Conviction in

Australia

Caitlin Nash1, Rachel Dioso-Villa1,

and Louise Porter1

Abstract

While the difficulties in appealing a guilty plea conviction are widely acknowledged,

little research has investigated how appellate courts handle guilty plea convictions.

This study addresses this gap by examining Australian appellate court judgments in

which a guilty plea conviction was contested, comparing successful appeals where a

guilty plea conviction was overturned (n = 193) against unsuccessful appeals where

a guilty plea conviction remained (n = 375). Hierarchical multiple logistic regression

analysis revealed that, independent of other case characteristics, legal representation

on appeal and support from legal actors significantly predicted a successful appeal,

while significant predictors of an unsuccessful appeal included male defendants,

defendants who received a term of imprisonment, and those who argued they were

pressured to plead guilty. The findings highlight the significant influence of legal

and extra-legal factors on appellate decision-making beyond the grounds of appeal

raised by the defendant, raising important policy implications for the post-conviction

process.

Keywords

guilty plea, criminal appeal, post-conviction review, miscarriage of justice, wrongful

conviction

1Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Caitlin Nash, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith

University, 176 Messines Ridge Rd, Mount Gravatt, QLD 4122, Australia.

Email: c.nash@griffith.edu.au

1162776CJPXXX10.1177/08874034231162776Criminal Justice Policy ReviewNash et al.

research-article2023

362 Criminal Justice Policy Review 34(4)

While the popular notion of an adversarial criminal justice system is a contested trial,

trials have become increasingly rare, and most cases are resolved by the defendant

pleading guilty. Guilty pleas account for more than 98% of all U.S. federal criminal

convictions (United States Sentencing Commission, 2022), 68% of all Crown Court

cases in the United Kingdom (Ministry of Justice, 2022), and more than 80% of crimi-

nal cases adjudicated in Australian higher courts (Australian Bureau of Statistics,

2012). The main justification for the high number of guilty pleas is to improve court

efficiency and reduce court delays, with many claiming that the court system simply

could not function if all cases proceeded to trial (Blume & Helm, 2014; Helm et al.,

2022). As a result, there has been a global spread of plea bargaining and other trial

waiver systems, with a growing number of countries offering criminal defendants

direct incentives to plead guilty to avoid the costs and time associated with a trial (Fair

Trials, 2017; Langer, 2021). Such incentives can put substantial pressures on criminal

defendants to plead guilty and have been argued to undermine the “safety” of a guilty

plea conviction (Nobles & Schiff, 2020), diminishing the traditional account of a

guilty plea as a voluntary and informed choice (Helm, 2019; Horne, 2016).

With most defendants pleading guilty, it is important to ensure that appellate courts

can provide an effective mechanism to recognize and respond to miscarriages of jus-

tice stemming from a guilty plea. However, while it is widely acknowledged that

defendants who plead guilty can face considerable challenges in having their convic-

tion reviewed and corrected on appeal (Alschuler, 2016; King, 2014; Wilford &

Khairalla, 2019), little empirical research has examined how appellate courts respond

to convictions resulting from a guilty plea and the reasons why such convictions may

be overturned. Although scholars in the United Kingdom have begun to consider how

appellate caselaw justifies a guilty plea conviction (Horne, 2016; Nobles & Schiff,

2020), few studies, if any, have quantitatively analyzed appellate court judgments in

which a guilty plea conviction is contested. Such an approach can provide a more

objective and systematic analysis of how appellate courts handle a guilty plea convic-

tion and the reasons why they may be either upheld or overturned on appeal.

Using Australia as a case study, this study analyzed Australian appellate court judg-

ments in which a guilty plea conviction was contested, quantitatively comparing “suc-

cessful” appeals where the guilty plea conviction was overturned against “unsuccessful”

appeals where the conviction remained. By exploring the differences between success-

ful and unsuccessful appeals, the study aimed to examine the reasons why a guilty plea

conviction is overturned and other salient factors influencing judicial decision-making

in the appeal process. While this can provide insight into the types of cases appellate

courts may be more likely to identify and perceive as a “miscarriage of justice” (the

successful appeals), it can also reveal the challenges and difficulties applicants may

face in having their guilty plea conviction overturned (the unsuccessful appeals).

Challenges in Appealing a Guilty Plea Conviction

As defendants who plead guilty waive their right to a trial and many of the associated

procedural protections, it might be thought that appellate courts would be more open to