Is it true the Supreme Court doesn't hear evidence?

Syth

I was talking to someone about abortion, and they were telling me about some misleading statements in the campaign (which there is loads). I've heard it mentioned by pro-life groups that "the Supreme Court didn't hear any medical evidence in the X Case" (this is obviously an attempt to discredit the X Case judgement). However this person told me that the Supreme Court is a court of appeal and hence it's not supposed to hear any evidence in any trial, so the statement "no medical evidence in X Case" is misleading.

Is this true? Does the Supreme Court not hear evidence?

I'm not so interested in this becoming a X Case/abortion legal debate thread, this was just the example. (Although if the answer is "yes the supreme court hears evidence, and yes there was medical evidence given in the supreme court X case" that would answer many questions )

CIARAN_BOYLE

Syth wrote: »

Is this true? Does the Supreme Court not hear evidence?

Very rarely. To the point that if the supreme court is going to hear evidence it makes the news
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/supreme-court-to-hear-new-evidence-in-bailey-case-536052.html

Usually they review evidence from the case in a lower court.

Most of the time appeals to the supreme court are on a point of law that the lawyers feel was misinterpeted by the lower courts and that the facts of the case have already been established

hullaballoo

The procedure in the Supreme Court is not to hear oral testimony but rather the Court reads transcripts of evidence given in the lower Court. However, the Supreme Court generally only deals with cases where there is an issue of law (rather than fact) to be decided.

That does not mean that they do not have evidence, just that the evidence is presented differently. Many cases, even in lower Courts, can proceed without the need for oral testimony without issue, generally by Affidavit (sworn statement) evidence.

Procrastastudy

OP, simply put, a case can get sent back to the High Court if the Supreme Court feel something material was missed or has subsequently come to light. If you think about it you have to have a Court with appellant jurisdiction - if the SC heard a case de novo (from the very beginning) where would you go if you felt they had got it wrong?