Well, we just wish to state on the record that we hoped we had been consulted, because it is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of the President of the Court, but at this time this was prepared and circulated, the parties were not consulted and there were some issues we brought to the attention of one of the legal officers. I remember writing a e-mail last year pointing out some issues with the Practice Direction that we hoped would be considered, and then some revisions were done this May and we appreciate that. They incorporated some of the suggestions. But be that as it may, it is, as you say, the governing principle.
One question arises with respect to number 10, which reads:
"The appellant shall present a holistic and comprehensive ground of appeal. Division of a ground of appeal into sub-grounds is impermissible."
Madam President, many times errors might have a cumulative effect that leads one, for example, to allege an unfair trial, if you will. Now, the way this is framed, it seems to us that identifying the various errors that one might say cumulatively resulted in an unfair trial might run afoul of this provision of the Practice Directive which suggests that sub-grounds should not be included into a ground of appeal.
Disparate errors in a judgement can collectively lead to a viable ground of appeal. Now, whether we delineate sub-grounds in a particular ground or we present it as a whole, it will be implicit in the ground of appeal that it is on the basis of several sub-grounds of appeal. And so this is a concern, and perhaps when there's a concrete example Your Honour will be able to pass on it more appropriately, but I must say that this particular provision of the Practice Direction might pose some challenges to us.