"…in English law the nature of the matter, criminal or otherwise, has to be treated as dependent on the nature of the act sought to be impugned or questioned and not on the means which the person adopts to complain of his private right."

This Court then went on in Century to give examples.

Mr Harris and Mr Barnes, the latter of whom appeared for two of the Ukrainians and for Mr Uoti, invited this Court to reconsider its decision in Century and to accept jurisdiction, the arguments advanced by them both not having been canvassed before this court in 1997.

The arguments initially advanced by them can be summarised as follows:-

1. that the Court of Appeal in Century failed to pay due regard to the terms of s.14 of the Appeal Law of 1961;

2. that the Appeal Law of 1961 provided its own definition of what is a "civil matter" by reference to the jurisdiction of the Cour des Jugements et Records, it being unnecessary and out of place to advert to the English authorities on the meaning of the phrase "criminal cause or matter" in the Armand line of cases; this is an argument which would likewise call into question the Jersey decision in McMahon -v- Attorney General (above);