Are there jurisdictions where an uninvolved party can appeal a court decision?

Question

I recently read about an outrageous court decision in my country where the prosecution only asked for a 2500€ fine for a dad for torturing his kids for years. The defendant obviously agreed to it (it's not a particularly high fine in my country) and the judge was OK if everyone is OK with it so it was a shortened trial. The prosecution won't appeal the decision as it was their suggestion, the defendant is obviously not stupid and won't appeal the decision, so no one is left except everyone who read about it and is dumbfounded.

This got me wondering. Are there any jurisdictions where the public or a member of it have the possibility to appeal a court decision they have no involvement with? I am mainly interested in the Europe/EU area, but I'd love to hear from other areas as well.

Answer 1

In Canada, in non-criminal proceedings, a non-party may appeal if that non-party could have been a proper party in the initial action. The non-party seeking to appeal must show that:

• its interest was not represented in the proceeding;
• it has an interest which was adversely affected;
• it is or can be bound by the order;
• it has a reasonably arguable case; and
• the interests of justice in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings would be served by allowing the non-party to appeal.

See Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549. That particular case arose in New Brunswick, but the same principles have been recognized elsewhere.

Appeals in criminal cases can only be by the Crown or the defendant.

Answer 2

In the UK, anyone can appeal to The Office of the Attorney General if they feel that a sentence is "unduly lenient".

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/unduly-lenient-sentences

If they agree, they can then refer the case onwards to The Court of Appeal for a reassessment.

Answer 3

I recently read about an outrageous court decision in my country where the prosecution only asked for a 2500€ fine for a dad for torturing his kids for years. The defendant obviously agreed to it (its not a particularly high fine in my country) and the judge was OK if everyone is OK with it so it was a shortened trial.

I don't know the details of the case, but you would have to distinguish between legal errors or disputable points of law (including those which might have a bearing upon you), and disagreements with political or judicial policy.

It sounds like your interest is the latter. There are very limited rights of court appeal against political policies decided by elected politicians, and there is no right of appeal against judicial policies correctly applied by the judge (and the judiciary control whether they think there is a possibility of error in applying policy, and whether they want to hear an appeal).

Generally speaking, the criminal justice system is less vindictive than a significant proportion of the public would wish it to be.

This is so for various reasons, including a desire to be economical with resources, and studied opinion on criminal justice matters and offender management being different from those of the public who are engaged with neither the details of problems nor the historical experiences.

Unless some kind of dishonest wrongdoing is alleged on the part of officials, then challenging a settled arrangement which was offered by a public prosecutor and accepted by a judge is unlikely to lead to any alteration in the penalty.

Often, a lenient penalty offered for what seems to be a sensationally evil crime, might reflect the weakness of the prosecution case which would only be apparent to someone with full access to the evidence and experience with its interpretation.

Another possibility, sometimes, is that the perpetrator may be a "licensed" criminal, and the weak sentence reflects a desire to keep them out on the street informing or acting against other criminals. This information is submitted to the judge privately and is not made public.

All told, there is very little power for an individual to directly challenge the outcome of a case in which they were not a party, on the mere grounds that they do not agree with a sentence or a plea deal.

Answer 4

US law provides for “intervenors” in civil cases but, as we are very protective of defendants, not in criminal cases.

Several states have “Victims’ Bill of Rights” laws, that gives the victims —not exactly “uninvolved parties”, but something like what you are asking about — the opportunity to be heard. There is an ongoing case in the US state of Maryland, where a murderer was freed after a hearing despite the family of victim not having been given notice to attend (and fwiw, despite the murderer being guilty as sin). The appeals court has reinstated the conviction, but of course the reinstatement is being appealed and the murderer remains at liberty.

Since the victims in the OP’s case are the offspring of the defendant, and presumably still minors, the court would typically appoint a guardian ad litem to represent them, and in some jurisdictions that guardian could be heard in the court.