Friday, 19 July 2013


In continuation of the PREVIOUS BLOG where member of the pubic Sam Canon, out of desperation, was reduced to dropping to his knees at the Royal Square in Jersey to plead for help in getting recognition of the injustices he claims to have suffered at the hands of Jersey's so-called "justice" system. We wrote in that previous posting "In the coming days we will be listing/publishing an inventory of the abuses of justice Mr. Canon claims to have suffered in his eight year battle against, what is increasingly looking like, a corrupt, and not fit for purpose "justice" system."

Below we have a redacted copy of Mr. Canons grievances taken from the bundle of papers shown in the photograph above. The same bundle was given to Channel Television who has thus far decided not to make them public.

The same Channel Television, who filmed Mr. Canon's make-shift Clameur de Haro, also interviewed him, at the scene, but again, for whatever reason has thus far decided not to share that interview with the public either.

Fortunately we were able to capture parts of that interview on video and offer it to our readers/viewers exclusively at the bottom of this post.


"It should be noted for the record that the root issue underlying all of the many failings and abuses of justice listed below had their beginnings in a property dispute; and with the legal principle known as ‘estoppel’. I am happy to enlarge upon this. But I would here make it known that since the end of my trial, which lasted for a full 13 days, in 2005:

· I have been denied by the legal system in Jersey my right to inform the court that I was subject to misrepresentation by (law firm) during my trial; who failed to divulge critical information to the court and information that I wished to address to the court.

· I have tried to address this problem through the Battonier's Public Office, but to no avail.

· I have tried to address this with the Law Society of Jersey, who whilst agreeing that rules have been broken by both sets of lawyers, did nothing about this. The President of the Law Society stated that (different law firm) were guilty of perverting the course of Justice and equally, gross misconduct under an Advocate’s duty to the court under their Oath.

· I have been refused my right to report crimes that took place during my trial, by the States of Jersey Police. I tried to report perjury, perverting the course of justice and theft.

· I have also tried to report these offences to the Attorney General and to the Home Affairs Minister – again all to no avail.

· It is also a fact that the Legal Aid system has been fraudulently accessed by both lawyers and the defendants.

· A number of the defendant’s witnesses perverted the course of justice. They also failed to divulge their relationships with the defendant to either my lawyers or to the court.

· Numerous rules have also been broken under JFSC’s compliance criteria, by both Advocates and (lawyers name), who at the time of the trial was licenced by the JFSC.

· The following State’s departments/bodies are also guilty of destroying or withholding information from the court: (redacted)

· And finally, I state that the transcript I received from the court is not a true transcript: there are discrepancies in the official transcript provided and those provided by my lawyers. I will also state that the account produced by my representatives was not factual.

· I ask why was I forced to pay disbursement costs by (law firm), indeed threatened by a Senior Partner, namely (name redacted).

· Having given a judgement and having written to the court to inform them that there are problems, despite being awarded full indemnity costs, I have no option but to bring this to the public domain in the hope that this miscarriage of justice is exposed; and that the Legal & Judicial System in Jersey will finally become accountable - which at this moment in time it clearly is not.

· Finally, I wish the court to inform the public that there is no crime if someone impersonates another person - in my case a lawyer - to deliberately gain access to your home and access data protected information. I request this because(senior Police Officer) states that it is only a crime to impersonate a Police Officer. One would expect an officer in his position, to have better knowledge of the job."(END)

VFC is unable to substantiate all the claims in Mr. Canon's "Plea For Justice" but can say they fit the pattern of numerous complaints of a similar nature made by many others who have experienced "Jersey Justice."


  1. So if you are stopped and questioned by police and use a fictitious name that is not a crime?

  2. In the video he said he had faced intimidation including by his own lawyer saying he might never work again in Jersey. It's this kind of intimidation that keeps so many from speaking out so full credit to him for doing so hopefully other members of the public will follow his example and Jersey can start to get cleaned up.

  3. It took four years to get his court transcripts - on its own - is unacceptable then to discover they're not a true reflection of what was said in court is a far more serious matter and needs to be dealt with. Problem is - there is no-one in Jersey who will deal with it.

  4. I feel so sorry for Sam, just an ordinary guy. Surely this case should wake up London about the corrupt Jersey justice system.
    It's sickening. Good luck Sam.

  5. Jacques M F Chartier19 July 2013 at 18:44

    I agree that there is nobody in Jersey who will deal with cases such as this one. I am still involved in a case where a States dept committed perjury. The Police refused to investigate my complaint. I then wrote to the Attorney General to no avail. Lawyers have misrepresented me on more than one occasion. A judge called me devious in his judgement and had to have this comment removed. The same judge was part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice regarding a child abuse matter. An acting batonnier has made decisions knowing full well that she is conflicted. An advocate who is now a judge failed to inform me of a conflict. I have been threatened by an advocate and ridiculed by others. The judicial system is a shambles and not fit for purpose...

  6. There will undoubtedly be trolls and even well meaning individuals who will look upon this as a matter of someone not being content with the court outcome. However, like the cases with the Pitmans, Stuart Syvret, and others, the issue is no longer about the merits of the original case at all. That has been long lost in the fog of deliberate opacity.

    The real issue is the corruption of process. It is about lawyers with oversight by their friends and colleagues, unaccountable judicial authorities who cannot be questioned by lay members of the public, and the astonishing lack of remedy when systematic failures occur throughout the foundation of the judicial process.


  7. Aaah, more doctored trial recordings!!! They have been doing this now since 1994, every case ever prosecuted that went to the appeal court should be kicked out from now, back to 1994. We have the proof we need :)

  8. Surely it would be better to get the court recordings and do your own transcript?

    1. There is evidence to suggest that not even the court recordings are a true reflection of what was/wasn't said in certain case(s).

  9. You can usually get an audio disc of your Royal court case at £50 a pop.
    Not so in the Magistrate’s court where the Greffier Substitute has discretion whether you can have a copy of the audio disc. There is now little doubt in my mind that recordings from the Magistrate’s court are sometimes tampered with and this is the only reason why people are not allowed to record the proceedings of their own cases, it is also why people cannot sometimes get an audio copy from the magistrate’s court. Heaven forbid someone might have the gumption to have an analysis done of the recording.


  10. Quite frankly, as there are official recordings of all court cases, I cannot see any logical reason why there should be a ban on recording court cases, surely if hansard is the official version any public version that deviated from that official version, would be subject to doubt, unlees it could be proved that that recording had not been ammended, which then would highlight something crimal going on within the state hansard system. Oh, I see why public recordings are banned - time for change!