For Johnny Depp supporters following the appeal process, here is an example of an appeal judge, in one of my client’s case, dismissing the argument that the judge made an error in a finding of fact (1)

The judge at trial found that my client wasn’t ill because there were no medical appointments (food poisoning) yet the defendant provided no evidence to the contrary and my client was found to be credible. I argued that it was appealable because (2)

There was no evidence to the contrary and no reasonable judge could come to the same conclusion. The appeal judge dismissed this ground of appeal on paper. You will note the judge says “it will be particularly rare for a challenge to a primary finding of fact by a trial judge (3)

.. who has seen witnesses give evidence to succeed on app al. Where an appeal court is asked to reverse findings of fact which are dependent on the credibility of witnesses, it will only do so if they t is satisfied that the judge was plainly wrong” (4)

An appeal won’t be given permission (ie permission to proceed to an appeal hearing) if there is no real prospect of meeting that threshold. The fact that the CoA has not granted permission on paper is not unexpected given the difficulty of the ground (5)

And the application additional evidence (and it’s potential role) but if there wasn’t at least a possibility of real prospect then the CofA would have refused on paper. A hearing is listed because the court doesn’t consider that it can fairly determine permission (6)

Who it’s not fair for is not clear but what is clear is that the CoA could have ended the appeal on paper but chose to determine the same at an oral hearing (7)