The Integrity Commission has reported that Norman Brown lost most of the grounds on which he sought a judicial review against the Commission regarding the report on the Prime Minister.

Brown, a business associate of Andrew Holness, wanted the court to grant him leave to apply for a judicial review against decisions in the “Investigation Report into the Statutory Declarations Submitted by the Prime Minister for the Years 2019 to 2022.”

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment yesterday.

Mr. Brown had applied for permission to bring a judicial review claim against the Commission and the Director of Investigation concerning aspects of the investigation report, in which conflict of interest concerns were raised regarding his personal/business relationship with the Prime Minister.

He also sought permission to bring a judicial review claim regarding recommendations made for referrals to the Tax Administration Jamaica and the Financial Investigation Division.

His application also aimed to secure permission for a judicial review claim concerning various declarations and a mandatory injunction to compel the Commission to amend the investigation report by removing all adverse findings made in relation to him.

The Commission stated that it succeeded in challenging the grant of leave to apply for judicial review against the Commission, arguing that the investigation report was completed by the Director of Investigation.

As a matter of law, the Director is the relevant decision-maker against whom a claim for judicial review could be made.

The court, therefore, refused to grant Mr. Brown permission to make any of his intended claims for judicial review against the Commission.

The Commission indicated at the start of the proceedings that while it did not consider the claim for judicial review regarding the referrals to the Commissioner General, Tax Administration Jamaica, and the Financial Investigation Division would likely succeed, it would not oppose granting Mr. Brown leave to challenge them, given the low threshold required for leave to be granted.

The judge therefore granted Mr. Brown leave to apply for judicial review only against the Director of Investigation in relation to that claim.

The judge agreed with the Commission’s attorneys and refused Mr. Brown leave to apply for judicial review to challenge that part of the investigation report which observed conflict of interest concerns regarding Mr. Brown’s personal/business relationship with the Prime Minister.

The judge also agreed with the Commission that Mr. Brown’s application for permission to apply for judicial review in respect of the six declarations and the mandatory injunction he was seeking was misconceived, as those reliefs do not require leave from the court and should not have been included in his application.

Mr. Brown’s attorneys applied for permission to appeal against the judgment regarding the judge’s various orders against him.

The judge dismissed their application.

The Commission stated that the judge’s orders are entirely consistent with its position and the submissions of its attorneys.

It added that it awaits the substantive claim from Mr. Brown and will respond accordingly.