In the present case the Attorney General was, in effect, acting as agent for a foreign power to search and seize documents from premises of private individuals, the individuals concerned having no recourse or means ofcontesting the use of those powers. It seems to me therefore that the character of the powers contained in section 24 of the Act and indeed in section 21 of the 1991 Act should properly to a limited extent be subject to judicial review by means of a Petition of Doleance.

I am fortified in this view by the position in England, and I cite the case of Smith ante in support of my opinion. In that case the applicant had been charged on 30th April 1991 with a criminal offence of knowingly being a party to the carrying on of the business of a company with intent to defraud its creditors. He was cautioned after being charged and elected to make no reply. On 29th April the Director of the Serious Fraud Office decided pursuant to section 1(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 to issue a Notice pursuant to section 2(2) requiring him to attend for interview. Before the interview took place the applicant applied for judicial review inter alia (i) to quash the section 2 Notice on the ground that the 1987 Act did not authorise the Director to serve a section 2 notice on the applicant after he had been charged (ii) to require the Director to caution the applicant, as required by para 16.5 of the code of practice, that he was not obliged to answer any questions concerning the matters with which he had been charged, before acquiring him to comply with the requirements of the section 2 Notice.

It is not necessary for this Court to consider the facts or indeed the decision in that case. The importance of the case in the present proceedings is that in England the self same powers as are contained in section 24 of the Act of Tynwald are unquestionably subject to judicial review. It is true that in England the power is exercisable by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office "under the superintendence of the Attorney General". The implication there is that even if the powers had been vested in the Attorney General of England then the exericse of those powers would have been subject to judicial review. Parliament obviously recognised the extreme nature of the investigative powers contained in the Act.