This was an appeal from the Inferior Number to the superior Number by way of a Doleance challenging a decision of the Inferior Number as to the inherent jurisdiction of the Petty Debts Court. The Deputy Bailiff delivered a full judgment tracing the history of Doleance in Jersey and at p.334 concluded as follows:-

"We were satisfied on the authorities to which we have referred that there was nothing in law or principle whereby the remedy of Doleance is to be regarded as a personal attack on the integrity or honour of the judge; it is not, "odious", it is a method of obtaining a judicial review of a decision where there is no right of appeal and it is to be allowed where the judgment contains a manifest error; it is to be compared with the prerogative writs of certiorari and mandamus; it implies no disrespect to the judge whose decision is thus reviewed; it is available as a remedy where a court makes an error of fact or law…"

Secondly, we were referred to the earlier Jersey case of In the matter of the Doleance of Barker (1985-6) JLR 284 in which the Royal Court allowed a petition of Doleance setting aside a decision of the Royal court by annulling a degrevement and ordering a remise des biens.

Thirdly, we were referred to the Isle of Man case of Re the Attorney General of the Isle of Man of which we have reports at first instance and on appeal (1997/8) 1 OFLR p.49 and 419 respectively. This is of particular interest in that the Court was prepared to give a remedy by way of a Petition of Doleance against the decision of the Attorney General to issue notices under s.24 of the Criminal Justice Act (Isle of Man) 1990, a statutory provision in identical terms to the Investigation Law of 1991. While it is not altogether clear, it would appear that the notices in question in that case were addressed to the persons whose affairs were under investigation. In any event the Court at first instance was prepared to accept jurisdiction of a supervisory nature, having considered the constitutional position of the Attorney General, and the Court of Appeal in a judgment delivered by Mr Benet Hytner Q.C., Judge of Appeal, was prepared to exercise a jurisdiction equivalent to that attendant upon the application of the wednesbury principles.