Original sentence: An example would be an eppeal from a Magistrates' court to the Crown Court in England and Wales.Another situation is where appeal is by way of re-hearing.Certain jurisdictions permit certain appeals to cause the trial to be heard afresh in the appellate court.Generally there is no trial in an appellate court, only consideration of the record of the evidence presented to the trial court and all the pre-trial and trial court proceedings are reviewed — unless the appeal is by way of re-hearing, new evidence will usually only be considered on appeal in very rare instances, for example if that material evidence was unavailable to a party for some very significant reason such as prosecutorial misconduct.In other systems, the appellate court will normally consider the record of the lower court.In some systems an appellate court will only consider the written decision of the lower court, together with any written evidence that was before that court and is relevant to the appeal.In those cases the record will first be certified by the lower court.The appellant has the opportunity to present arguments for the granting of the appeal and the appellee (or respondent) can present arguments against it.This might be the proper standard of review, for example, if the lower court resolved the case by granting a pre-trial motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment which is usually based only upon written submissions to the trial court and not on any trial testimony
Edited sentence: After copies of the record have been made and certified by the court below the appellant has the opportunity to present arguments for the granting of the appeal and the appellee (or respondent) can present arguments against it.Generally there is no trial in an appellate court, only consideration of the record of the evidence presented to the trial court and all the pre-trial and trial court proceedings are reviewed — in very rare instances new evidence may be considered on appeal if that material evidence was unavailable to a party for some very significant reason such as prosecutorial misconduct.This would be the proper standard of review, for example, if the lower court resolved the case by granting a pre-trial motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment which is usually based only upon written submissions to the trial court and not on any trial testimony