17 Circular Road
Douglas
Isle of Man
IM1 1AF
British Isles

Tel.:
+44 1624 670003
Fax:
+44 1624 612281



contiadvocates
@yahoo.com



Petition of FP Frederiksen & ors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

General's decisions, on the merits, can be considered. However, the Attorney General himself conceded that the Court (in Jersey) had a limited power to examine the Attorney General's exercise of his powers under that law. It is therefore interesting to note that the ultimate ruling in the Jersey case was (page 51) -

"1 It is not in the public interest that the decision of the Attorney General to issue a Notice under the law should be reviewable as to its merits.

2. Nevertheless, the Court has the power and in appropriate cases should exercise it to enquire into the three matters concerning the exercise of the Attorney General's discretion mentioned by Mr Clyde-Smith, that is to say

(a) whether the powers of the Attorney General exist to enable him to make a decision;

(b) the extent of those powers; and

(c) whether or not those powers have been exercised in the appropriate form".

The conclusion I draw from those rulings is that in Jersey the Court has a limited power to review the Attorney General's actions but only as to the procedures and not on the merits, a position which may well apply in this Island where Petitions of Doleance cannot be a substitute for an appeal on the merits.

The learned Bailiff at page 43 stated as follows:-

"...... they show that the English Courts have, as the Court has noted in the extract from Wade, been prepared to widen the scope of judicial review and Crown Court Judges acting administratively and even Governors of Colonies, have found their decisions subject to judicial review."

The learned Bailiff then referred to the four cases that came nearest in general content to the one with which he was dealing (R v Director of Serious Fraud Office ex P. Saunders, R v Director of Serious Fraud office ex P. Smith, Moore Stephens v Procureur and Bertoli v Malone. The Smith case is reported at 1992 3ALL ER p456 and I will return to that authority later. Both the Saunders and the Smith case were applications for judicial review under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

© 1999-2003 Conti. All rights reserved