• We respectfully reject this decision on behalf of the applicant . 
  • We will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court . 
  • It is clear the Courts continue to undertake linguistic gymnastics to refuse these claims rather than concentrate on the consequences of the miscarriage for such applicants . 
  • The Court has indicated it considers itself bound by the Supreme Courts Decision in Adams so we say this matter should be considered a fresh by the Supreme Court . 
  • The Court has accepted contrary to the Governments argument that the European decision in Allen is authoritative and should be followed - this holds that Article 6 ( 2 ) does apply to Section 133 . 
  • It is our view that it is untenable to suggest that assessing innocence in relation to a newly discovered fact and innocence as a whole are different tasks - it is exactly the same assessment to determine innocence . 
  • The Court has accepted that if the Secretary of State casts doubt on an applicants innocence then this would engage article 6 ( 2 ) and lead to infringement . 
  • The Court in our view has failed to address the failings of the Secretary of State in any event to assess the evidence in Victor Nealons case which clearly shows he did not commit the offence . What the Secretary of  State actually did to come to his decision has not been tested . 
  • If this decision is allowed to stand it won't just narrow the opportunity for applicants to make claims it will reduce such claims to the point of vanishing . 
  • Accordingly we will pursue this matter a fresh before the Supreme Court . Today is a bad day for those who suffer miscarriages of justice .
  • Our Clients fight is not over .