If that is right then clearly, if at all possible, persons subjected to the Attorney General's similar functions in the Island, a fortiori in the instant case where premises were entered and searched and documents seized, should have some recourse, in the absence of an appeal procedure, to have the exercise of such powers examined by the Court to ensure that there has been no irregularity or non compliance with the strict terms of the Section. A Petition of Doleance is not in the nature of an appeal on the merits. It is a remedy for irregularities in procedure or mishandling of statutory powers. It is therefore only fair to warn the Petitioners in this case that whilst this Court will not bar them from approaching the seat of justice in order to correct and if necessary to quash the acts of the Attorney General in relation to his powers under Section 24 of the Act, this Court will not act as an appellate authority but will act as a supervisory tribunal to ensure that the Attorney General complied strictly with the provisions of the statute and that he exercised his powers and functions properly and regularly.

The result is that on the first preliminary point raised by the Attorney General this Court declares that in relation to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1990 this Court does have power to the extent indicated in this Judgment only, to hear and determine a Petition of Doleance over the exercise of the Attorney General's discretion relating to his decision and the Notices he issued under Section 24 of the Act.