"This case raises not one but two questions of major constitutional importance: first, whether the Attorney General is answerable to the court, or only to Parliament, for the exercise of hisdiscretionary powers .... The first question may be answered, in my judgment, shortly and unequivocally. The Attorney General's discretion is not subject to review by the court, he is not answerable to the court in this respect, and like everyone else, he cannot be compelled to act as a plainitff against his wish. There is, therefore, no clash or conflict in this respect between Parliament and the court or between the court and the Attorney General."

When the case went to the House of Lords, the issue no longer arose because it had been abandoned by the Applicant. Nevertheless, the members of the House considered it a matter of such importance that they should express their views and firmly repudiated Lord Denning's dissenting opinion. This was most trenchantly done by Viscount Dilhorne, himself an ex Attorney General. At page 487 E to G he then continued:

"The Attorney General has many powers and duties. He may stop any prosecution on indictment by entering a nolle prosequi. He merely has to sign a piece of paper saying that he does not wish the prosecution to continue. He need not give any reasons. He can direct the institution of a prosecution and direct the Director of Public Prosecutions to take over the conduct of any criminal proceedings and he may tell him to offer no evidence. In the exercise of these powers he is not subject to direction by his ministerial colleagues or to control and supervision by the courts. If -the court can review his refusal of consent to a relator action, it is an exception to the general rule. No authority was cited which supports the conclusion that the courts can do so. Indeed such authority as there is points strongly in the opposite direction."

He then cited the LCC v Attorney General. Lord Wilberforce's speech is to the same effect. He regarded the propositions as elementary (see page 479 A to B). Lord Diplock agreed with what Lord Wilberforce and Viscount Dilhorne has said at page 500. Lord Edmund-Davies endorsed the views of Lord Justice Lawton and Lord Justice ormrod at page 505. Lord Frazer of Tullybeltan said at page 523 G: