"We for our part endorse the existence of a remedy by way of judicial review in Jersey. The inherent jurisdiction of the Courts to control excess or abuse of power by executive bodies seems to us to be intrinsic to the very judicial process, and vital to the rule of law. To confer upon an administrative authority limited powers only, but to provide no means for confining it within those limits would be paradoxical. There is nothing in the traditions of Norman French Law, as developed in Jersey, which appears incompatible, and much appears consistent, with our conclusion. It would be in principle regrettable to deny to a citizen of Jersey a form of relief available to citizens in other parts of Her Majesty's Dominions".

The only point at which there appears to be a distinction between the situation in Jersey as described in that passage and the situation in Guernsey is that there is an absence of reported cases in Guernsey in which (special statutory provisions apart) such a remedy has been pursued in the Royal Court or its predecessor. That is not to say that there has never been such a case; the limited law reporting in this Bailiwick in the past may have omitted reference to cases which could now be labelled as of an administrative or constitutional character.

In R -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p. National Federation of Self- Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 at 641 Lord Diplock spoke of

"…That process towards a comprehensive system of administrative law that I regard as having been the greatest achievement of the English Courts in my lifetime"

We note too that in the Woolf Report on Access to Justice it is recognised that

"As has so often been stated, the growth of public law, and in particular judicial review, has been one of the most significant developments in the English system in the last 25 years".

The exclusion of Guernsey and its inhabitants from the benefits of an equivalent to this system would be an anomaly which we would not think it right to preserve.