Upon her successful bid to gain a second appeal, convicted murderer Susan Neill-Fraser's case will go before the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Neill-Fraser has served nine years of a 23-year sentence for the murder of her partner Bob Chappell, who disappeared on Australia Day, 2009.
Neill-Fraser unsuccessfully attempted to appeal her conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal in 2012 and her application to appeal in the High Court was also refused.
Under new state legislation introduced in 2015, Neill-Fraser was granted a second appeal by Justice Michael Brett as she was able to prove she had "fresh and compelling" evidence.
The Court of Criminal Appeal deals exclusively with appeal applications on Supreme Court decisions and consists of three judges.
Dr Helen Cockburn, University of Tasmania criminal law lecturer, said the Court of Criminal Appeal was not concerned with the reliability of the evidence put forward in trial.
"That's not the job of the Court of Criminal Appeal," Dr Cockburn said.
"They are examining the decision that was made at trial."
"The trial is concerned with matters of fact, looking at the factual evidence in the case, whereas the Court of Criminal Appeal doesn't look at the evidence per se. It really looks at the decision and how the decision at trial was reached.
"If an appeal is lodged against a conviction or an acquittal, the appeal has to rely on an argument that there has been an error in law.
"The Court of Criminal Appeal will often defer to the trial judge or the jury to make those decisions about the facts because they were the ones in court listening to the witnesses, listening to the whole evidence."
Dr Cockburn said appeals were put forward by the defence in most cases because there were restrictions on when the Crown can appeal an acquittal or sentence.
"Either the court can direct that the original verdict is quashed or they direct that a new trial is convened," she said.
Dr Cockburn said the new state legislation referred to the fact the court could hear a "second or subsequent appeal," implying if a first appeal was unsuccessful a person was able to bid for a subsequent appeal if they could produce additional "fresh and compelling" evidence.