7. that to hold otherwise would be to infringe the terms of Articles 8(1)&(2) and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

8. that in cases such as those presently under consideration it is all the more appropriate that the Court should have jurisdiction because the Courts of Guernsey would have no control over the use of such information "elsewhere" i.e. in another jurisdiction and in a criminal proceeding abroad over which the laws and practices of Guernsey have no control;

9. that HM Procureur ( being appointed by Her Majesty and occupying a similar but clearly distinguishable position to the Attorney General in England) is not immune from process either generally or in regard to such proceedings as the present under the investigation Law of 1991;

10. that the applicants in the Century case had not proceeded by way of Doleance and the applicants had adopted or were adopting such a course in the present proceedings;

11. that the Applicants have (contrary to the contentions of the Procureur) standing to bring these proceedings and make these applications.

Thereafter, a further argument was raised based on the extra-territorial effect of the investigation Law 1991 so far as it affected these Applicants to which argument we refer later in this judgment.