Mayne wins partial court approval in IC fight

A lawsuit filed by junior finance minister Zavia Mayne challenging an investigation report by the Integrity Commission (IC) into his statutory declarations can go ahead but without two senior IC officials as defendants, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The IC is Jamaica’s principal anti-corruption body.

Mayne, like all parliamentarians and most public officials, is required by law to submit annual declarations of his income, assets and liabilities.

High Court Judge Sonya Wint-Blair ruled on October 6 that the permission to allow Mayne’s lawsuit to proceed is limited to the investigation conducted by the IC, the findings and recommendations of its director of investigations (DI), the directions that were issued by the commissioners, and the preparation of the investigation report.

IC Executive Director Craig Beresford and Roneiph Lawrence, the IC’s acting director of corruption prosecution at the time, have been removed as respondents to the lawsuit, according to the court order.

“For the avoidance of doubt, the evidence reveals a genuine issue concerning the directions the commission [IC] gave the DI in relation to the report,” Wint-Blair said in the 18-page judgment posted on the court’s website on Monday.

It is the second ruling handed down by Wint-Blair in the lawsuit filed by Mayne, the member of parliament (MP) for St Ann South Western.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Mayne had initially sought leave or permission to apply for judicial review of the decision by the IC’s director of corruption prosecution to file criminal charges against him for alleged breaches of the Integrity Commission Act.

He asked the court to grant an order of certiorari quashing the ruling of the IC’s director of corruption prosecution, arguing that the charges should not have been brought against him or that they should not be permitted to continue.

But in dismissing the application, Wint-Blair ruled on April 28 that Mayne did not show that the conduct of the IC involved dishonesty, mala fides, political interference, political pressure, the surrender of independent prosecutorial discretion or any comparable abuse of prosecutorial power.

“The applicant’s complaints concern the relevance, reasonableness and sustainability of the prosecution. They go to the merits of the criminal case. They raise questions about whether the evidence is admissible, sufficient, and viable and whether the prosecution can prove its case. Those are matters for the trial judge,” she reasoned

“If the evidence is irrelevant or inadmissible, the trial judge may exclude it. If the prosecution fails to establish a case to answer, the trial judge may so rule. If the proceedings are unfair or amount to an abuse of process, the trial judge may stay them,” the judgment noted.

The IC investigation report, which was tabled in Parliament last December, concluded that Mayne failed, without reasonable cause, to provide the requested information and documentation regarding his statutory declarations for the period 2018 to 2022.

As a result, the IC’s then-acting director of corruption prosecution ruled that he should be charged with breaching Section 43(1)(b) of the IC Act.

livern.barrett@gleanerjm.com