Royal Court: "no evidence to support vexatious allegations"

Sunday 01 October 2017

A Royal Court decision seems to have put an end to a long legal fight into claims of alleged police and court corruption.

In 2008 the Royal Court order 3B Holding Limited to be wound up on just and equitable grounds. Four years later one of the partial owners, and his son Roger Bisson, unsuccessfully went to court to have the joint liquidators removed on a number of grounds including an allegation of dishonesty in the conduct of the winding up.

The court concluded everything was in order, and although the duo never appealed the decision Roger Bisson did make a formal complaint to the police that he had been the victim of “a combination of perjury and corruption in proceedings before the Royal Court”.

The police looked into the claim and found no grounds to support it. That then prompted Mr Bisson to contact the Jersey Police Complaints Authority alleging the police inspector heading up the investigation hadn’t done the job properly. The JPCA also concluded everything had been done properly.

In the latest twist, still not happy with the outcome, Mr Bisson went back to court in June to appeal against a decision it had made preventing him from seeking a judicial review. The court has now detailed why it isn’t allowing him to have a judicial review, in effect bringing the matter to a close.

In this latest decision the court notes the principle reason the earlier court refused permission to appeal was because there “was no arguable ground for judicial review having a reasonable prospect of success”. It then goes on to detail why it believes this to be the case.

The court decision is highly critical of Mr Bisson’s approach. Commenting on one of his reasons for being allowed an appeal the court says:

“Though on this occasion insinuated rather than clearly stated, this appears to be yet another instance of the Appellant’s unhappy tendency to make vexatious allegations of deliberate misconduct for which evidence is entirely lacking.”

Towards the end of the court’s detailed reasoning it states: “the Appellant’s mode of operation throughout these proceedings has been to impugn the honesty of a wide range of people without producing any evidence to support his claims.  It is perfectly appropriate for a judge pointedly to draw attention both to the emptiness of the allegations of a litigant and to the irresponsible manner in which they were developed.”