We take the second and third questions together. In our judgment it is clear that the operation of the Investigation Law of 1991 by HM Procureur does have some extra-territorial effect, insofar as HM Procureur responds to requests coming from foreign countries, and by way of response furnishes information and copy documents to authorities in foreign countries. The vital question is the third one - whether this relatively small degree of extra-territorial operation (bearing in mind that everything which HM Procureur does under the Law is done in Guernsey) is essential or necessary for the good government of Guernsey. To this question we consider that there is only one answer to be made, that this degree of extra-territorial operation is essential for the good government of Guernsey. Much crime, including fraud, drug-trafficking and money laundering, is international. The criminals involved ignore the boundaries of States in their criminal activities. To suggest that assistance by Guernsey for foreign states in the world-wide fight against crime is not, in general, essential to the good government of Guernsey is, in our judgment, misconceived. So even if it were to be the case that the powers of the States of Guernsey were limited in the manner for which Mr. Barnes and Mr. Harris so lucidly argued, it is our judgment that the Investigation Law of 1991 does not go beyond those limits and is a valid enactment.

The relevance of extra-territoriality, however, does not stop there. We have already held that HM Procureur is not above the law, and that his exercise of his powers under the Investigation Law of 1991 is subject to judicial control in accordance with the usual Wednesbury principles.