He sought a stay and a declaration. It appears from the judgment of the Deputy Bailiff on this application handed down on the 15th July 1998 that Mr Barnes in that instance was not challenging the decision of the Royal Court in the Century case but no point was taken on this before us. The Deputy Bailiff rejected the application, and said that it would have been open to CST to apply for a declaration as to the meaning of the Notice if it was unclear, but that he was not prepared to go behind the Procureur's Notice, and he rejected the suggestion that there was anything in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to assist the application.

In Century Holdings -v- HM Procureur, an unreported decision of this court dated the 16th April 1997, this Court decided.that it had no jurisdiction under the Appeal Law of 1961 to hear appeals (and therefore to grant leave to appeal) in proceedings brought to challenge the validity of notices issued by the Procureur under the Investigation Law of 1991. In so holding it followed the decision of the Jersey Court of Appeal in McMahon -v- Attorney General (1993) JLR 108, where it was sought to challenge a notice under the equivalent investigation law in Jersey, namely the investigation of Fraud (Jersey) law 1991. In view of the Court's decision as to the lack of jurisdiction to hear appeals it did not in either case consider the terms of the judgments appealed against. In his judgment in McMahon (1993) JLR 35 Sir Peter Crill, then the Bailiff of Jersey (sitting with two Jurats), recognised a limited power in the Royal Court to enquire into the exercise of its power, but the Deputy Bailiff in Guernsey refused to follow the same path in century (1997/98 OFLR p.220).