Mr. Tom Flynn:

-----where there has been a complete ouster of jurisdiction. To be clear, there is still a residual right to appeal to the Supreme Court and by a quirk of the system, the criterion for appealing to the Supreme Court - it is called a "leapfrog" appeal - is actually lower than the Court of Appeal. Therefore, the pragmatic argument would be that really this does not make any difference. There is certainly a case for that, in that it does not make any difference and that if an issue arises, one still has the leapfrog appeal. Many lawyers would be reluctant about the idea of ousting the jurisdiction of the court completely. I presume that is the principal argument.