"3. It is suggested that trial counsel was not properly prepared and did not ask all relevant questions. Counsel has put in a full response. She had been instructed well before the second trial, had had a full pre-trial conference and was properly prepared at trial. 4. Transcripts of the interview (edited, as is conventional, to remove irrelevancies) were before the Jury. There is also no basis for asserting that what he said there was not properly investigated. 5. To say that the prosecution case was all based on hearsay is absurd. It was based on direct evidence. 6. As to the credibility of the complainant, there were agreed facts as to her antecedent history and she could not be presented as a person of good character. It is also said that she gave untruthful or inaccurate answers on a number of matters. But those were trial points and were the subject of cross examination and cannot be argued all over again on appeal. 7. That there were 8 women on the Jury in law affords no ground of appeal. 8. It is suggested that relevant witnesses were not called. But it is not identified just what relevant evidence they could give. Reference is also made to the abandoned first trial, but that is not relevant to the retrial. It is also suggested that there is inconsistency between the conviction on some counts and acquittals on others. But the evidence on each count was not the same; and it is common-place in Jury trials for there to be convictions on some counts but not on others, without any illogicality. 9. None of the various other points raised affords any arguable ground of appeal. 10. I conclude that the grounds are simply not arguable."