10 Jun 2011
Leave to appeal was granted because the question whether s.26(4) imposes a persuasive burden or only an evidential burden is an arguable point of law of great and general importance; leave was granted only under the point of law limb of s.32(2) and not under the substantial and grave injustice limb.
3 May 2011
Leave to appeal was granted: the Court accepted the certified point of law concerning whether the definition of maintenance meets constitutional certainty requirements is worthy of the Court's attention and granted leave under that limb and under the substantial and grave injustice limb; the Court refused to certify the separate art.35 right of access argument as not reasonably arguable.
30 Aug 2010
On the written applications as they stood, applicants had not sufficiently identified accepted norms and specific departures to satisfy the high threshold for leave under the 'substantial and grave injustice' limb of s.32(2); the court held a case management hearing to require applicants to particularize grounds and warned that the CFA will not act as an ordinary criminal appeal court absent properly articulated issues of law or demonstrable substantial and grave injustice.
13 Jul 2010
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the marriage was legally valid for the purposes of the charge, the conspiracy to defraud properly covered the false representations made to the Immigration Department to obtain a dependent visa, there was no material gap in evidence about the Department's duty, and the applicants failed to show a point of law or substantial and grave injustice under s.32(2).
8 Jul 2010
Leave to appeal was granted on the point of law limb of s.32(2) because the Committee found several reasonably arguable legal questions concerning the definition and proof of seriousness and the appropriate mental element that warranted determination by the Court of Final Appeal; the Committee refused leave under the substantial and grave injustice limb and did not decide the conviction at this stage.
6 Oct 2005
Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal acted within its broad discretion in apportioning costs and, absent rare and exceptional circumstances, an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on costs alone does not meet the substantial and grave injustice threshold of s.32(2). The Court of Appeal's partial award was justified by factors including the applicant's prior conduct and the basis of the appeal.
4 Oct 2005
Leave to appeal against conviction refused because there was no reasonably arguable departure from accepted norms; leave to appeal against sentence refused because there were no rare or exceptional circumstances nor any controversy over a sentencing principle of great and general importance to justify granting leave.
20 Jul 2004
The Court granted leave to appeal under both limbs of s.32(2): it certified that the question whether genuine distress negates a defence assertion of fantasy is a point of law of great and general importance, and it held that it was reasonably arguable that the admission of evidence of the alleged victim's good character may have caused substantial and grave injustice, thereby justifying leave.
31 Jan 2000
Leave to appeal denied because the questions raised involved application of settled law to facts rather than novel points of law, and the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case that there was a departure from accepted norms amounting to substantial and grave injustice; the Court of Appeal properly directed the jury and the convictions were not unsafe or unsatisfactory.
4 Oct 1999
The Appeal Committee found this to be a rare and exceptional case under s.32(2) where there was a real danger of a serious wrong arising from the impugned fact‑finding about the till contents; the applicant surmounted the high threshold for leave, and therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was granted to permit full review of the contested facts and issues.