"1.1 It is a long established principle that the Court has no power of judicial review over the exercise of the Attorney General's discretion in relation to decisions taken by the Attorney General in the execution of his public office.

1 .2 Further or in the alternative, the Petition of Doleance seeks damages where no common law right to claim damages has been pleaded in accordance with section 44(2) of the High Court Act 1991."

Mr Morris appeared for the Attorney General and Mr Conti for the Petitioners. Mr Conti reserved his position in respect of point 1.2 supra and the Court concentrated upon the important and indeed interesting point as to whether decisions in the discretion of the Attorney General in the Isle of Man could be re-examined and indeed quashed on a Petition of Doleance by this Court.

Mr Morris, in a compelling submission averred that it was an accepted principle both here and in England that decisions of the Attorney General taken in the execution of his public office were not subject to reconsideration by the High Court. He was able to quote numerous examples and instances (in England) where it has been held that the Attorney General's decisions are not subject to review. Indeed it was readily accepted by Mr Conti that both in England and in the Island decisions of the Attorney General to prosecute or to refrain from prosecution cannot be questioned. There are many Acts of Tynwald and of Parliament under which the Attorney General's consent is required before a prosecution can be launched; there is the Attorney General's power to enter a nolle prosequi; his power to refuse to consent to a relator action.