An appeal is lodged in Belfast
An appeal has been lodged in Belfast. The defendant is Eleanor Donaldson. Her lawyers have submitted papers to the Northern Ireland Courts Service, beginning a challenge against an uncommon type of legal verdict. This is not a conventional appeal against a criminal conviction. It cannot be. Eleanor Donaldson was never found guilty of a crime, so the process of seeking to overturn such a judgment is simply not applicable to her specific situation. The application, confirmed by officials on 17 September 2026, is for leave to appeal a finding from a 'trial of the facts'. The procedure is very rare.
Most appeals that reach the courts follow a familiar and well understood path. A person is tried, convicted by a jury or magistrate, and then sentenced by a judge. Their appeal then challenges the safety of that conviction or the fairness of the sentence that was imposed. This is not that. The very foundation of Donaldson's case is different. There was no jury to persuade. There was no finding of guilt to contest. The original hearing was convened under special rules precisely because the defendant was deemed unfit to participate in a standard trial, a situation that changes the legal questions entirely.
The hearing under challenge is a 'trial of the facts'. It is a legal tool used only when a defendant cannot properly stand trial, whether for reasons of mental or physical incapacity. A court in this position is legally barred from returning a verdict of 'guilty'. The process does not determine criminal guilt. It asks a much narrower question. The court is asked to determine only if the evidence shows the person 'did the act' of which they were accused. It is this conclusion, the formal finding that she did the act, which Eleanor Donaldson’s legal team now seeks permission to challenge before the Court of Appeal. This is the sole point at issue.
What is a trial of the facts?
A defendant must be fit to plead. This is a core principle. They must understand the charges. They must be able to instruct their lawyers. Without this, a fair trial is impossible. When a court determines that a person is not fit, perhaps due to a severe mental disorder or a physical condition that impairs their cognitive functions, the entire criminal process must change its course. The traditional trial cannot proceed. A jury cannot be sworn. Guilt cannot be determined. Instead, the law provides an alternative. This is a different kind of hearing. Its name is a trial of the facts.
The purpose is not to secure a conviction but to examine the evidence in the absence of a plea. A judge, sitting alone without a jury, considers the allegations presented by the prosecution. They must decide on a simple question. Did the defendant do the physical act or make the omission with which they are charged. The court makes no assessment of criminal intent. The hearing establishes a factual record. It is a safeguard. It ensures that an individual who cannot defend themselves is not subject to the full powers of the criminal justice system without some form of judicial scrutiny of the case against them, preventing indefinite detention without process.
This procedure is rooted in statute. It is not judicial invention. In England and Wales, the key legislation is the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, which created the modern framework for handling defendants found unfit to plead. The equivalent provisions for Northern Ireland are found within the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. While the principles are similar across the United Kingdom, the specific articles of the 1986 Order govern how these hearings are conducted in Belfast’s courts. The legislation provides a very specific pathway. It is a narrow one. If the court finds the person did the act, it can then impose a hospital order, a supervision order, or grant an absolute discharge. It cannot send them to prison.
This finding is not a conviction. It carries no criminal record in the conventional sense. The person is not a convicted criminal. That is a vital distinction. It is a formal, judicial conclusion that a person was responsible for a specific physical act, reached after a hearing in which they were unable to properly participate because of their condition. The entire system is organised to recognise the defendant’s vulnerability. That is the theory. An appeal like Eleanor Donaldson’s tests how that theory works in practice for some of the most vulnerable people in the justice system.
The grounds for a challenge
An appeal here is not an appeal against guilt. That is not the question. The challenge is against the court’s finding of fact, the stark conclusion that the defendant ‘did the act’. This is a technical argument. It is a legal one. The appeal contends that the judge in the original hearing made a mistake in reaching that specific conclusion. The grounds for such a challenge are narrow, but they are fundamental to how justice is administered for people unable to plead. One avenue is the evidence itself. Lawyers for the appellant could argue that the trial judge misinterpreted key evidence, or that certain items of evidence should not have been admitted in the first place. They could claim that the court placed undue weight on a single piece of analysis which was, on its own, inconclusive. The evidence was not strong enough. The logic was flawed. An appeal might demonstrate, for example, how circumstantial evidence that only pointed towards a possibility was incorrectly treated by the court as a certainty, a fatal leap in judicial reasoning that led directly to the erroneous finding.
Another line of attack is procedure. The law has rules. A trial of the facts, though different from a full criminal trial, is still bound by its own strict procedural framework laid out in the Mental Health Order. An appeal could argue that the court deviated from this process in a way that created an injustice. It might be a simple error. It might be a complex one. The challenge could focus on the judge’s management of the hearing, the decision to exclude a defence expert, or the way in which the defendant’s own limited participation was handled by the court. These are not arguments about intent or state of mind, but about the mechanical integrity of the legal process itself. The contention is that if the rules were not followed correctly, the conclusion cannot be safe, irrespective of the factual evidence presented by the prosecution. The process protects the person.
The most common ground for any criminal appeal is also available here. The standard of proof. The prosecution must still prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did the act they are accused of. This is a very high barrier. An appeal from a trial of the facts can argue that the evidence presented by the Crown, when taken as a whole, simply did not meet that exacting standard. The judge was wrong. The evidence was insufficient. The appeal would not need to prove innocence, but merely show that the evidence was too ambiguous, too weak, or too contradictory to support a finding of fact beyond reasonable doubt. It is an argument that the prosecution failed. It asserts that even if the defendant cannot offer their own story, the story told by the state must be utterly compelling on its own terms, free of holes and inconsistencies, before a court can make a finding with such serious consequences for the individual involved.
The process begins with permission
The process has started. Her lawyers have acted. The Northern Ireland Courts Service confirmed on 17 September 2026 that it had received an 'application for leave to appeal'. This is not the appeal. It is a request for one. The document is a formal petition for permission to have the case heard in full by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. The application is a critical legal filing, drafted by barristers to explain in precise detail every proposed ground for the appeal and the reasons they believe the original trial’s finding of fact was legally unsafe. It is a paper exercise for now. Judges will read the arguments.
This stage is a filter. A crucial one. Courts have limited time. They cannot hear every challenge. The ‘leave to appeal’ system is designed to sift cases, ensuring only those with genuine, arguable merit proceed to a full hearing where lawyers make their case in person. The test is clear. Does the appeal have a realistic prospect of success? This is the only question. The judges are not there to decide the final outcome, but simply to assess if there is a substantive point of law at stake or a serious question about the evidence that is substantial enough to warrant a full judicial review. The burden rests entirely with Ms Donaldson's lawyers. They must persuade the court. Their arguments must have weight. They must convince the judges that a real legal issue exists which needs to be resolved.
A single senior judge usually decides. Sometimes two. They will read the documents from the defence. They may also consider a brief response from the prosecution, in this instance the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. This all happens in private. There is no big courtroom hearing. No witnesses are called. It is a process conducted on paper, where judges apply their legal expertise to the written arguments laid before them. The outcome is binary. If they grant leave, the case moves to a full hearing in the Court of Appeal where both sides will present their arguments in person. If they refuse leave, the challenge is over. The finding of fact stands. Permission to appeal is not a right. It must be earned.
What are the possible outcomes?
If the Court of Appeal agrees to hear the case, it will move to a full hearing in Belfast. This is the main event. Barristers will present detailed arguments. Judges will listen. There are two possible outcomes. The appeal could be dismissed.
A dismissal would mean the senior judges found no fault with the original proceedings. They would be confirming that the trial of the facts was conducted properly, that the law was correctly applied, and that the evidence was sufficient to conclude that Eleanor Donaldson ‘did the act’. The original finding is upheld. It stands. For Ms Donaldson, this particular legal challenge would be over. Any consequences flowing from the original finding, which in such cases can include hospital orders or supervision orders designed to manage risk, would remain firmly in place. The Court of Appeal would have effectively endorsed the first court's decision, leaving no further room for manoeuvre on these specific grounds.
The other path is that the appeal succeeds. The finding is quashed. This would happen if the judges agreed with Ms Donaldson’s lawyers that a significant legal or procedural error tainted the original trial. The finding is nullified. It becomes legally void. It is critical to understand what this does not mean. It is not an acquittal. It is not a declaration of innocence. Because a trial of the facts can never find a person guilty, a successful appeal against it cannot find them not guilty. The entire process operates outside the normal binaries of guilt and innocence, existing in a unique legal space created for defendants unable to participate in their own trial.
Quashing the finding invalidates the court’s conclusion. The slate is wiped clean. This resets the legal situation to the point it was at before the trial of the facts began, but it does not resolve the original accusation. Ms Donaldson would remain a person deemed unfit to plead. The Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland would have to reconsider its position entirely. It could decide to take no further action. It could also, in theory, seek a new trial of the facts, starting the entire process again. This outcome is a procedural victory, not a final resolution. It is a powerful statement about the conduct of the first hearing, but it leaves the defendant in a state of profound legal uncertainty.
A test for defendants' rights
This appeal is about more than Eleanor Donaldson. It is a test. The case forces an examination of the rights afforded to some of the most vulnerable individuals who enter the justice system. These are people found unfit to stand trial. They are people whose mental or physical health prevents them from participating in their own defence in any meaningful way, from giving coherent instructions to their lawyers to understanding the very charges laid against them by the state. The law cannot stop. A legal framework must accommodate this difficult reality, but the path it creates is fraught with complex ethical problems for judges to solve. The system must find a way forward.
The core of the issue is a balance. A difficult one. A fundamental tension exists. On one side is the public interest. Serious allegations must be addressed by a court and risks to public safety must be managed. On the other side is the individual’s right to a fair hearing, a right that becomes almost theoretical when that person cannot comprehend the process they are being subjected to. A trial of the facts is the mechanism designed by Parliament to resolve this. Eleanor Donaldson’s appeal questions how fair that mechanism is. The Court of Appeal in Belfast must weigh the state’s duty to prosecute crime against its duty to protect a citizen unable to defend themselves. That is a heavy responsibility.
The outcome could set a vital precedent. It could change things. A detailed judgment from the Court of Appeal will provide much needed legal clarification on the procedural and evidential rules that must govern these unusual trials across Northern Ireland. It may define with greater precision the standards a judge must meet to be satisfied, on the evidence, that the defendant 'did the act' as alleged. It may also establish clearer grounds for how and when such a finding can be challenged, creating a more defined appeal route for other defendants in a similar position in the future. The ruling will not simply affect Ms Donaldson’s case. It will reverberate. It will shape how justice is delivered to people who, through no fault of their own, are incapable of pleading guilty or not guilty. The final judgment will define their rights. It will set the standard for fairness.
Sources. BBC News UK: Eleanor Donaldson to appeal trial of the facts verdict. Evening Standard: Eleanor Donaldson to appeal against trial of the facts verdict.
Analysis. Drafted with AI assistance from the sources listed above and reviewed by an editor before publication. Jnews links to the organisations it writes about.
