IC acted fairly in report on controversial Charlemont development, Supreme Court rules

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Integrity Commission (IC) acted lawfully and fairly in publishing a report that was critical of how a former official at the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) handled breaches identified at a controversial housing development. 

 

The ruling was handed down Monday by Justice Tania Mott Tulloch Reid. 

 

The housing development at 11 Charlemont Drive in St. Andrew was undertaken by Mark Barnett, president of the state-owned National Water Commission, his wife Annette, an attorney, and developer Phillip Smith. 

 

Mr. Barnett was sent on leave following the release of the report.

 

The 2023 investigative report by the IC found that instead of the 12 one-bedroom units approved by authorities, the development had six two-bedroom units and six three-bedroom units in breach of permits and approvals issued by both NEPA and the Kingston and St. Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC).

 

The IC's Director of Investigations, Kevon Stephenson, concluded in the report that after issuing a warning letter to the developers on February 10, 2021, former Director of the Legal and Enforcement Division at NEPA, Morjorn Wallock, "failed to execute any further enforcement measures to ensure compliance with the permits issued in relation to the development". 

 

Mr. Stevenson concluded further that the omission by Ms. Wallock amounted to gross dereliction of duty and significantly contributed to the creation of the opportunity, which facilitated the breaches identified at the development. 

 

Ms. Wallock, through her attorneys Symone Mayhew and Lemar Neale and Aaliyah Myrie sought judicial review of the adverse findings, arguing that she was never informed during two hearings of the Integrity Commission that she was a person under investigation and was blindsided by the dereliction of duty accusation. 

 

Ms. Wallock also argued that the findings and recommendation made by the IC were procedurally irregular because she was not given the opportunity to defend herself against the allegations. 

 

But Justice Tulloch Reid in her judgment noted that Ms. Wallach was given an opportunity to respond to the issues raised by the IC and the role she played or whether she wanted to clarify anything, but declined. 

 

Justice Tulloch Reed said it was her view that the process was fair and did not breach the rule of natural justice. 

 

The IC was represented by senior attorney Annaliesa Lindsay.