we were further referred to authorities which indicate that in England the Crown Prosecution service and the Director of the serious Fraud office are amenable to judicial review. Thus in R -v- Director of Public Prosecutions ex p. c (1995) 7 Admin. L.R. p.385 judicial review was available in respect of a decision not to prosecute, and in R -v- Director of Serious Fraud office ex p. Smith (1993) AC 1 the House of Lords upon an application for judicial review considered the extent of the powers of the Director of the serious Fraud office under s.2 of the 1987 Act to require the provision of information and answers to questions. While there is no authority as to the immunity of HM Procureur in Guernsey and while unlike the Attorney General in England (and perhaps the Attorney General of the Isle of Man) he is not answerable to a body of a parliamentary nature there may be matters in respect of which he is entitled to immunity. However this is not an overall immunity and we respectfully repeat and adopt the propositions expressed by Popplewell J in R -v- Attorney General ex p. Ferrante (above), which read as follows:-

"(1) Gouriet is of general application and is not limited to relator actions.

(2) The decision whether the power of the Attorney General is immune from review does not depend upon the source of those powers but on their character. Arguments as the prerogative and statutory duties are sterile.

(3) The Attorney General is acting as guardian of the public interest in applications under s.13 of the Coroners Act.

(4) ...

(5) ...

(6) The question as to whether the decision is amenable to judicial process depends on the nature of the subject matter.

(7) It is for the Courts to decide on a case by case basis whether the matter is reviewable or not ...

(8) …

(9) …"