LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Stay of Execution – Appeal Against Refusal of Stay – Approach of Appellate Court

Appeals from refusal to grant stay of execution require different approach than original stay applications. In original application: applicant shows special circumstances justifying stay. On appeal from refusal: appellant must demonstrate lower court erred in refusing stay—burden shifts to showing wrongness of decision, not merely showing special circumstances exist. “Different approach” recognizes: appellate courts review discretionary decisions deferentially, don’t exercise fresh discretion, and intervene only when lower court erred. Appellants must establish: lower court wrongly exercised discretion, failed to consider material factors, considered irrelevant factors, or reached unreasonable conclusion. This serves: respecting lower court’s exercise of discretion, preventing appeals becoming fresh applications, and maintaining appellate hierarchy. Appellate courts don’t simply decide afresh whether stay should be granted—they assess whether refusal was wrong. Grounds for interference: lower court ignored relevant factors, applied wrong principles, or decision was unreasonable. This standard is more difficult than original application—appellants must show not just that stay should be granted, but that refusal was wrong. This deference to lower court discretion maintains proper appellate function.