APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — When Supreme Court Will Interfere
Ratio Decidendi
Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in Joseph v. State (2011) NLC-123-48-2010(SC) at pp. 9; Paras D–E:
"Before this court upsets concurrent findings of the courts below the appellant must satisfy this court that the findings are perverse, that there has been an error in the substantive and, or procedural law, or that there has been miscarriage of justice."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that the Supreme Court will not upset concurrent findings unless the appellant shows that the findings are perverse, there is an error in substantive or procedural law, or there has been a miscarriage of justice. The principle applies where concurrent findings are challenged. It ensures that findings are respected. The principle reflects the limited scope of appellate review. It prevents unnecessary interference. The court must find an exception. The principle provides guidance on when the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings.