It's a strange case to examine, and I think he's chosen it in order to get extra clicks and views, rather than any relevancy it has to the law in general. This case is a freak outlier of a case, and a one off.
All except one of the grounds of contention submitted by Bamber to the CoA had already been rejected by the CCRC prior to referral to the CoA. That includes the 'ground' that the lawyer discussed in the video. Those 15 grounds of contention should never have been referred to the CoA in the first place.
And yet the lawyer placed a huge amount of weight to the accusation that a TFG officer used one of the phones in the house. A ground of contention that had already been dismissed by the CCRC.
The only real issue here is that Bambers legal team were able to re-submit 15 previously rejected grounds of contention to the CoA, which took up a huge amount of time, which frustrated and annoyed the 3 CoA judges so much, that at the end of their report, they effectively request a change in the law to stop that particular abuse from happening again.
None of that was discussed by the lawyer. But actually, that is the real legal talking point about this case, the ability of one convicted criminal to game the system in his favour, at the expense of genuine miscarriages of justice.