The advocates acting for the present applicants have sought to persuade us that these two previous decisions were wrong and that the Courts of Appeal both here and in Jersey acted per incuriam. These contentions having been raised by their Notices of Appeal and by their written Cases it was decided that we would hear the arguments as to jurisdiction first and then consider whether, on the assumption that we had jurisdiction, the court should grant leave. Two further circumstances arose in the course of the hearing; first, it became apparent that in order to consider the approach adopted in the arguments advanced on behalf of the Applicants to the matter it would be necessary to consider the jurisdiction of the ordinary Court and the Cour des Jugements et Records (the jurisdiction of the latter being the basis of the jurisdiction of this court); secondly, the Crown Advocate on behalf of the Procureur conceded that, if the Court were to decide the question of jurisdiction in favour of the Applicants, it was an appropriate matter in which to grant leave to appeal.

Before turning to the detailed arguments raised on behalf of the Applicants as to jurisdiction it is appropriate to refer to the authorities touching upon the power of this Court to depart from its previous decisions. The root of modern authority on the point is to be found in the judgment delivered by sir Godfray Le Quesne in Smith -v- Harvey (1981) 14th May No.9 civil:

"By virtue of section 13 of the court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961 the appellate jurisdiction in civil matters which was formerly vested in the Royal court sitting as a Cour des Jugements et Records is now vested in the Court of Appeal. In terms of section 14 of that Law this Court has all the power, authority and jurisdiction which vested in the Royal Court sitting as a "Cour des Jugements et Records". That Court does not appear to have been bound by its own decisions. This court Is not bound by its own decisions or by decisions of the Cour des Jugements et Records".