circumstantial evidence is allowed and the jury liked it. Getting the result you didnt want isnt grounds for an appeal, there has to be a legal basis. Just because she has applied for leave to appeal doesn't mean Judgey will grant it, there has to be a legal grounding for it, such as improper behaviour from the prosecution, new evidence that wasn't available (not not available, not not used) at the first trial, judge with a biased summing up, a poor legal direction mid trial from judge etc.No, I'm merely underlining that there's road left in this case. It was circumstantial evidence that convicted her.
If the judge allows the legal challenge to go ahead then it's going to a retrial I would guess.