The final extract which I wish to take from the Judgment of the Learned Bailiff is at page 44, where he says in reference to the cases of Saunders and Smith

"...... both of these cases concern the question of procedure corresponding to Mr Clyde Smith's second exception to the exclusion rule, that is to say, the extent of the Attorney General's powers which may be examined by the Court. They do not appear to be authority for the proposition that the merits of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office's decision to issue a Notice is subject to judicial review but they may nevertheless be held to include a necessary implication to that effect".

The learned Bailiff there seeks to distinguish the two cases on the basis that they were complaints about procedure and not substance. Nevertheless he conceded in the final line that they were authority for implying that the Director's decisions on the merits might be subject to judicial review.

There is, however, authority in England in 1995 following the Jersey case which at least suggests that in certain circumstances which do not appear to have been defined the Attorney General's decisions can be reviewed and that he does not enjoy a "blanket immunity" as submitted by Mr Morris. I refer to the judgment in the Divisional Court in R v Solicitor General ex-parte Taylor and Another reported in the Times on the 14th August 1995. The panel in that case consisted of Stuart-Smith L.J. and Butterfield J. On the first page of the report Stuart-Smith L.J. said