The position of HM Procureur

The position of HM Procureur in Guernsey is similar to that of the Attorney General in England, save that he is not answerable to the States, the legislative body for the Island. In this he and the Attorney General of Jersey differ also from the Attorney General of the Isle of Man, who has been said to be answerable to Tynwald, the latter being a proposition which we take leave to doubt.

The Attorney General in England and Wales (and the solicitor General) possesses various immunities of long standing, which are so well established as to have withstood recent attempts to dislodge them. Thus in Reg -v- Solicitor General ex. P.Taylor & Taylor (1995) 8 Admin. Law Reports p.206 the English Divisional Court has held that the Attorney General is immune from suit in the exercise of his discretion in deciding whether or not to bring proceedings under s.7 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 in respect of contempt of court. In giving the principal judgment of the Court Stuart-Smith L.J. reviewed the authorities, and in so doing gave his approval to an analysis effected by Popplewell J. in R -v- Attorney General ex p. Ferrante (unreported July 1st 1994). Stuart-Smith said at p.218:-

"The authorities to which I have referred which lay down the rules in relation to the Attorney General point to his unique constitutional position. If his office was invented tomorrow without the weight of precedent as to his position there would be great force in Mr Robertson's submission, but they cannot override the clearly established position. Moreover the fact that the reason for reviewability of the decision relates to the policy considerations does not mean that where such considerations do not arise in a particular case, that decision is exceptionally reviewable. There is no logic in that argument and it would be difficult if not impossible to apply in practice".