Bearing in mind that the Applicants have lodged petitions of special leave to appeal to Her Majesty in council, and that the matter came before this Court so that the Applicants could in the event of their applications failing in this Court demonstrate that they have exhausted their local remedies, we considered it to be appropriate to deal with the totality of these submissions irrespective of the fact that the answer to any particular one could result, if adverse to the applications, in the failure of the applications, so that the Judicial committee can be informed of our conclusions as to all the matters of potential relevance which have been raised. The nature of the arguments summarised above also required a consideration of the rights of the parties as they would have been prior to the passing of the Appeal Law of 1961. It is proposed to address the original submissions summarised above in the reverse order with the addition of the argument as to apparent extra-territorial effect in its appropriate place in this judgment.

Before so doing it is convenient to set out the terms of s. 1(1)(2)(3) & (9) of the investigation Law of 1991.

".Powers of investigation

1. (1) The powers of Her Majesty's Procureur under this section shall be exercisable in any case in which it appears to him-

(a) on reasonable grounds that there is a suspected offence involving serious or complex fraud, wherever committed; and

(b) that there is good reason to do so for the Purpose of investigating the affairs, or any aspect of the affairs, of any person.

(2) Her Majesty's Procureur may by notice in writing require the person whose affairs are to be investigated ("the person under investigation") or any other person whom he has reason to believe has relevant information to attend before Her Majesty's Procureur at a specified time and place to answer questions or otherwise furnish information with respect to any matter relevant to the investigation.