That's the part I'm struggling with, namely this idea that it could ever be contrary to the interests of justice to review a conviction that there was reasonable grounds to conclude there may be a miscarriage of justice. That's why I think, when we look at statutes and statutory interpretation, it's within the scheme of the whole bill.
I think the more likely interpretation that would be brought to bear to this requirement, if it remained in, is the one that I said earlier, which is that it actually should be a positive attribute to an application, as opposed to a negative attribute, if that makes sense.