In this case we are dealing with the powers of an officer of this Court who is appointed to his office by Her Majesty the Queen. That fact puts Her Majesty's Procureur in a different position to the other bodies to which I have referred".

At page 39 of the Judgment Sir Peter Crill states as follows:-

"The question before the Court, therefore, is whether the Attorney General's decision to issue the Notice of November 24, and for that matter any similar Notice under the statute, is open to judicial review by the Court and, if so, to what extent. The representors say that the Court has the power to examine all the circumstances of the Notice, including its merits, which of course, would include the facts giving rise to the issue of the Notice. The Attorney General has accepted that the Court has a power but only to a very limited extent i.e. it may examine whether the powers of the Attorney General exist to make a decision, the extent of those powers and whether or not the powers have been exercised in the appropriate form.

Beyond that, the Attorney General says that because the legislature has made no provision in the statute for an appeal, there are no other means by which the Court can or should judicially review the exercise of the Attorney General's discretion in a matter arising out of a criminal investigation.

The present criminal investigation is in the Republic of Ireland and is being carried out under the aegis of the Director of Public Prosecutions of that country".

My interpretation of those remarks is that the learned Bailiff is making it quite clear that as there are no appeal provisions in the particular law, no review of the Attorney