Lindsay Sandiford
Appeal
Appeal
------

Sandiford had seven days to lodge an appeal following the sentence. On 28 January Gede Ketut Rantam, registrar of Denpasar District Court in Bali, confirmed his office had received an appeal request from Sandiford. She was then given a further fourteen days to file a more detailed appeal. The appellate system of Indonesia has three levels; the High Court, the [Supreme Court](/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Indonesia "Supreme Court of Indonesia"), and a direct appeal for clemency to the [President](/wiki/President_of_Indonesia "President of Indonesia").

Her financial resources had been exhausted by legal costs during her trial, and consular staff identified an Indonesian lawyer who was willing to represent her on a [pro bono](/wiki/Pro_bono "Pro bono") basis at appeal, but who required expenses of £2,500 to travel to Bali. On 1 February Teesside's *[Evening Gazette](/wiki/Evening_Gazette_%28Teesside%29 "Evening Gazette (Teesside)")* reported that £3,500 had been collectively pledged by donors to accounts established on online donation sites [Justgiving](/wiki/Justgiving "Justgiving") and [Indiegogo](/wiki/Indiegogo "Indiegogo") to pay for her legal fees. On 4 February the *Gazette* reported that the money had been used to hire a lawyer, while a Reprieve official was working in Bali to help file the appeal. Sandiford's lawyer, Fadillah Agus, lodged an appeal with the Indonesian High Court on 11 February. He argued that Sandiford's sentence did not take into account her cooperation with police.

In February 2013 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office submitted an *[amicus curiae](/wiki/Amicus_curiae "Amicus curiae")* to Denpasar District Court alleging that police had used [sleep deprivation](/wiki/Sleep_deprivation "Sleep deprivation") on Sandiford and threatened her with a firearm following her arrest, and consequently "violated Lindsay Sandiford's fundamental rights under international laws and the Indonesian constitution". The document also argued her punishment was disproportionate to the crime she committed, and did not take into account her cooperation with authorities. The British consulate in Bali also submitted a statement to the court expressing the country's objection to the death penalty.

Bali's High Court announced on 8 April 2013 that Sandiford's appeal had been denied and her conviction and death sentence upheld. The Court ruled the original sentence was "accurate and correct," and gave her 14 days to lodge an appeal with the Indonesian Supreme Court. Agus announced on 19 April that an appeal would be lodged within the next few days. On 23 April notice was given by Sandiford's lawyer to the Supreme Court that she would challenge the sentence.

On 7 May 2013, Sandiford appealed against her sentence to the Indonesian Supreme Court. On 30 August, the Supreme Court rejected her appeal. Sandiford is able to lodge a judicial review if new evidence is presented or if there was negligence in the case.

Sandiford applied for a presidential pardon in December 2014\. In 2015 she recruited Indonesian lawyers for an attempt to seek a retrial on her behalf. No date had been set for her execution as of August 2017\. In April 2023 she was still in [Kerobokan Prison](/wiki/Kerobokan_Prison "Kerobokan Prison") in Bali.

### UK government legal challenge

On the day Sandiford lodged her preliminary appeal the London\-based law firm [Leigh Day](/wiki/Leigh_Day "Leigh Day"), which is working with Reprieve on her behalf, said it would seek a judicial review of the UK government's position that it does not provide funds for the legal representation of British nationals facing criminal proceedings overseas. Reprieve believed that by not providing Sandiford, a British citizen, with financial help to cover her legal costs the government had breached its obligations towards her. The legal challenge was heard at the High Court before [Mrs Justice Gloster](/wiki/Elizabeth_Gloster "Elizabeth Gloster") and [Mrs Justice Nicola Davies](/wiki/Nicola_Davies_%28judge%29 "Nicola Davies (judge)") on 31 January, but the case was dismissed. The judges ruled that Sandiford had "no reasonable prospect of success", remarks that attracted criticism from anti–death penalty campaigners.

Sandiford appealed against this decision, but it was again rejected at the High Court in April 2013, by a three\-judge panel chaired by [Master of the Rolls](/wiki/Master_of_the_Rolls "Master of the Rolls") [Lord Dyson](/wiki/John_Dyson%2C_Lord_Dyson "John Dyson, Lord Dyson"). By then Sandiford's first line of appeal against her death sentence had been rejected, and she required £6,000 towards her legal costs for the next stage of her appeal. In his summing up on 22 April Lord Dyson said that it was "most unfortunate" Sandiford required "relatively speaking ... \[a] very small sum indeed" for her legal costs, but that this "cannot affect the principle that we have had to consider and it cannot affect our decision. It may be that other means may be found to secure the relatively small sum in the course of the next few days." The judges published their reasons for rejecting the appeal on 22 May. In the written judgement, Lord Dyson said that Sandiford had argued the Foreign Secretary's position was "unlawful" but that the High Court had been "right to conclude" it was not. "As the Secretary of State concedes, it would be possible to produce a policy under which funds for legal representation were made available to British nationals in certain defined circumstances...But the question is not whether the Secretary of State could produce a different policy which many would regard as fairer and more reasonable and humane than the present policy. It is whether the policy that he has produced is irrational. I am in no doubt that the policy is not irrational. It is based on reasoning which is coherent and which is neither arbitrary nor perverse."

In a written interview with [BBC Radio 5 Live](/wiki/BBC_Radio_5_Live "BBC Radio 5 Live") presenter [Victoria Derbyshire](/wiki/Victoria_Derbyshire "Victoria Derbyshire") shortly after the UK appeal was rejected, Sandiford said that the Foreign Office's stance was "tantamount to condoning the death penalty" and claimed she was receiving little support from them. "The government and FCO are doing all they can to resist me at this difficult time."


Can Lindsay Sandiford afford any further appeals?