Thread by @tombarton

At the Court of Appeal this morning as Peterborough MP Fiona Onasanya seeks to overturn conviction for perverting the course of justice.

If #FionaOnasanya loses, the process of opening petition to see if Peterborough residents want her to remain as their MP would begin.

If she wins, her conviction would be overturned. It would be down to @cpsuk to decide whether to hold a retrial.

BREAKING: Fiona Onasanya is representing herself.

Fiona Onasanya tells the court hasn't brought any papers with her.

Sir Brian Leveson, on of the Court of Appeal judges, says the only possible grounds of appeal are an error of law.

The #FionaOnasanya case is being heard in front of Court of Appeal judges Mr Justice William Davis, Sir Brian Leveson (President of the Queen’s Bench Division) and Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb

Sir Brian says "we don't redefine the evidence ... you are a solicitor so you will understand that."

Sir Brian: your case is based on facts that by the end of the case weren't an issue. To that extent, what the DeFeo's said is rather marginal. You didn't have to be driving the car, as the Judge made clear.

Onasanya: I still maintain my innocence.

The suggestion (I've not seen her grounds for Appeal) is that the appeal is based on evidence from #FionaOnasanya's former supporter Dr Christian DeFeo.

Sir Brian: your presence at the DeFeo's house is a matter of fact, not law.

Sir Brian: the conversation on 2nd September (with police investigator) definitely involved you.

Onasanya: the note the police investigator made didn't include some facts of our conversation.

Onasanya: media coverage, because of the position that I hold, inferred guilt. Not one article included my point of view. When it came to a retrial, 15 days later, the jury would have been aware of that.

Sir Brian: there were strong warnings from the judge at the retrial to the jury not to look at any media at all.

Onasanya: judge at original trial excluded part of police investigator's note saying that she had signed the Notice of Intended Prosecution. This wasn't excluded at retrial. #FionaOnasanya is highlighting the discrepancy.

Sir Brian: I do not accept, speaking for myself (not the other two judges), that the main evidence came from the DeFeos. It is agreed fact that your car went through the light, that you were in the car at the time. Whether you were driving or not is neither here nor there.

David Jeremy QC, prosecution barrister, now using his papers to help guide the judges to the relevant sections #FionaOnasanya has been raising in her conversation with Sir Brian.

(Although the numbers in the barrister's and the judges' bundles don't actually match up.)

Jeremy: as you've observed in your conversation with the applicant, the prosecution case was that the applicant gave false information on three occasions.
1. Signing NIP
2. Writing letter replying to police querying who the driver was
3. Speaking to police investigator

Jeremy: the judge at retrial accepted our argument that the original judge's decision about the police investigator's notes was wrong in principle.

Court now rising to read papers. Back at 1125.

Judges are back in, starting again shortly.

Sir Brian starting now: this applicant was convicted following a retrial of intending to pervert the course of justice. She was sentence to three months in prison. Her application for leave to appeal has been referred to the full court by the registrar.

Sir Brian: as a serving MP, there is a very real public interest in the outcome of this case.

Sir Brian now laying out the facts as heard at trial: her car was clocked speeding, NIP was filled in with name of someone who was in Russia at the time.

Sir Brian: the significance of the evidence of the DeFeos should not be overstated, even though the applicant says it was at the core of the prosecution.

Sir Brian: The reason is that the agreed facts show that it was not in issue that the Nissan Micra triggered the speed camera and that #FionaOnasanya's phone was recorded at cell sites in the area.

Sir Brian: the note made by (police investigator) Mr Williams was to the effect "she stands by the NIP. When challenged about phone evidence she didn't have an answer."

Sir Brian: the applicant challenged the accuracy of the one, and gave evidence that she did not sign the response (NIP).

Sir Brian: now summing up #FionaOnasanya's grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal was that indictment was unclear of misleading because it used all counts, including those that only related to her brother.

Sir Brian: in our judgement it is not open to applicant to retract a necessary part of her defence (that Festus acted alone)

Sir Brian: second ground of appeal is the evidence of what appldescrobed as "key prosecution witnesses" was unreliable.

Sir Brian: what was not in issue was that she was in car at the time it triggered the sopped camera, that being based on the photograph and cell site analysis. So whether DeFeos were accurate in timing does not impact on the verdict.

Sir Brian: third ground is that investigating officer advised DeFeos in an email that they needed to 'tighten up their timing'.

It is clear an email was sent by an officer investigating the case asking that inquiries be made of call data from their mobiles.

Sir Brian: the way in which this email was couched **was inappropriate and wrong**.

The letter involves witnesses of fact in the prosecution case theory in a manner which simply is wrong.

Having said that, this was fully investigated at trial and jury could make up there mind.

Sir Brian: that does not make a valid ground of appeal.

Sir Brian: finally the applicant makes reference to media coverage surrounding the case.

Sir Brian: in the presence of the jury the judge said "it is and remains absolutely critical that you remain as 12 people responsible for the outcome, and that you do not - do not - do not - go onto any social media sites"

Sir Brian: there is no suggestion that counsel for the applicant sought to discharge the jury. Had she done so, in any event, she would have failed.

In the circumstances this grounds also fails.

Sir Brian: in the course of argument, another potential grounds has emerged regarding the admission of a note from the police investigator.

We have been told the first judge omitted a number of words,. The matter was argued again at retrial.

Sir Brian: we investigated this issue, even though not originally submitted as a ground for appeal.

Having read the judgment, it is abundantly clear that the conclusion reached was entirely open to him.

Sir Brian: in concothi applicant was triad fairly by a jury. No misdeirection for the judge.

BREAKING: #FionaOnasany appeal against conviction REFUSED

Fiona Onasanya tells reporters she won't comment today

Having been refused leave to appeal, a recall petition will be oepened in Peterborough.

It is now down to the city's voters to decide whether she remains their MP.

WATCH: John Bercow has begun the process of launching a recall petition to see whether Peterborough's voters want #FionaOnasanya to remain their MP.

NEW: Labour response to news a Recall Petition is to be opened

Also: Conservative respond to appeal being refused

When she left court earlier today, #FionaOnasanya didn't answer any questions from reporters.

my full report in 25 minutes on @BBCLookEast

BREAKING: @PeterboroughCC says the process of running the recall petition is estimated to cost in the region of £500,000. The cost will be fully funded by the Government.