Why have appeals?

I dont get it. Im doing a law module and going through the tribunal service. I notice that everywhere I read there is a disadvantage of not having an absulote right to appeal. I dont get how this is a disadvantage in providing access to justice. Why should you get another hearing?

Judges are human. Humans make mistakes. When a judge makes mistakes during a trial, the result can be an unfair trial. It's because of the certainty that some errors will be committed that the institution of the appeal has been preserved. It's not a new hearing: it's a hearing to determine if the original proceedings were properly and fairly done.

Incidentally, since it's so much of an issue in this thread, no system in the English-speaking world allows for an appeal because of new evidence. Most systems provide that IF evidence is discovered after the case is decided AND the evidence would have changed the outcome AND the person who wants to get the new evidence heard has a good reason why he did not offer the "new" evidence during the original trial, THEN, under some systems and depending on how strong the excuse is for not offering the evidence the first time around, the party can request a new trial. If the judge denies the motion for a new trial, you can appeal from that ruling. And in a criminal case, new evidence can sometimes be used to base a habeas corpus proceeding. That's still not an appeal, and anyone who completed law school would know the difference.

Because something may have been missed in the initial hearing, that may aid in the second hearing if you are defending a client in a case that's why! Its those little things that may clear or convict someone does that make sense!

Because in the heat & movement of trial judges make mistakes. Without an appeal there'd be no way to correct mistakes. Or, different judges have different views of the application of the law to different facts. Appeals give the affected parties an opportunity to evaluate the errors or the differing legal holdings; research the law and formulate arguments to be made before a panel of (supposedly) senior experienced judges -- who (presumably) will correct the mistakes and ensure uniformity of legal rulings.

EDITED TO CORRECT MISINFORMATION: "New evidence" has NOTHING to do with appeals. Newly discoverd evidence is grounds to seek a new trial -- not grounds for appeal. Appeals exist ONLY to correct errors of law.

new evidence...2nd chances

Let's put this in a situation you might understand then.

You are at school one day and there is a serach of lockers. An ounce of cocaine is found in your locker and you are suspended.

You go before a tribunal and are found guilty and expelled from school. Without an appeal you are toast.

HOWEVER, a week later, you find a new witness who was sick the previous week but who saw someone put the drugs in your locker immediately before the search.

Wihtout the right of appeal due to new evidence, you would have no chance to prove your innocence.

Also, courts don't always get it right, witnesses don't always tell the truth and the legal proceedings aren't always fair. Appeal is a way(although flawed itself) to insure that every accused has the right and opportunity to a fair trial.

EDTIED TO ANSWER MLAW:

Actually new evidence CAN be used as grounds for appeal which I should have clarified more clearly. In this particular case I was referring to evidence held by the prosecuting attorney and not disclosed during trial which would lead to the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. However, the underlying new evidence would be the reason for the appeal which, if granted, could result in the new trial based on a reiew of ALL evidence, old and new.