i think this is some interesting statistics , page-8

Doughboy

In the extract you quoted: Warden Heaney and the standing required by an objector.

It seems to me to be nothing particularly important. Only talking about how relevant, for example, at the time would say, a RIO mob's type of gripe have to be to be able to excite the Minister into taking RIO seriously.

For just as simply as a “Bowler” could deliver a fast ball, he could deliver a slow ball. Or a googly. The Minista could even refuse to play ball because, like when that lady in Little Britain turns to the computer, and “the computer says no”, the Minista could say just as easily that, “Sorry. My brain says No” to the s.111A applicant and refuse to consider it, as he thinks there is no standing. That there is nothing in the application relevant to a s.111A appeal.

I don't think in your extract that anyone is saying that the Minista, when making a s.111A determination under s.111A (1a)-(1c) only has to give almost any sort of reason. Or a reason that is the result of the Minista’s mind suffering a mere spark!

Though some might criticise the Bowler decision because they think bowler's reasons are so insufficient that they must reflect a mind that has only enough spark in it to keep the autonomous nervous system functioning.

Of course as Dame Edna would say, “But I mean that in a kind way”.