" (1) Gouriet is of general application and is not limited to relator actions.

(2) The decision whether the Power of Attorney General is immune from review does not depend upon the source of those powers but on their character. Arguments relating to the prerogative and statutory duties are sterile.

(3) The Attorney General is acting as guardian of the public interest in applications under Section 13 of the Coronet's Act

(4) The fact that he is no longer the exclusive guardian of the public interest if irrelevant. His continued inclusion as a necessary element in the re-hearing of an inquest makes that clear.

(5) The fact that a local authority exercising similar powers is subject to judicial review though logically compelling is not a reason for making the Attorney General so subject.

(6) The question of whether the decision is amenable to judicial process depends on the nature and subject matter.

(7) It is for the Courts to decide on a case by case basis whether the matter in question is reviewable or not.

(8) The Attorney General's consent is required for a wide variety of litigation. Thus in the criminal law in relation to corruption, explosive substances, official secrets, Public order act offences, racial hatred offences, proceeding under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 Section 7 power to enter a nolle prosequi in civil law the power to make a litigant a vexatious litigant.

(9) These are only some of the situations in which Parliament has imposed upon the Attorney General, the right as guardian of the public interest either himself to bring the proceedings or to give authority for proceedings to be brought. These examples are of a similar nature; which involve or may involve questions of policy which it is for Parliament and not for the Courts to assess."

The authorities to which I have referred which lay down the rules in relation to the Attorney General, point to his unique constitutional position. If his office was invented by statute tomorrow without the weight of precedent as to his position, there would be great force in Mr Robertson's submission but they cannot override the clearly established position. Moreover, the fact that the reason for the non-reviewability of the decision relates to the policy considerations, does not mean that where such considerations do not arise in a particular case, that decision is exceptionally reviewable. There is no logic in that argument and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to apply in practice.