Jamaica Labour Party Member Parliament (MP) Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert is dead set on having her day in court in the wake of Friday’s ruling by Parish Court Judge Leighton Morris that she should be tried for breaches of the Integrity Commission Act and allegedly making false statements in her statutory declarations to the Integrity Commission between 2015 and 2021.

“She is still adamant that it was an oversight on her part and she had the opportunity to correct it and she did… she wants her trial, she wants her day in court. She has nothing to fear,” attorney Peter Champagnie, King’s Counsel, who leads the politician’s defence team, told the Jamaica Observer on Friday.

Dalrymple-Philibert — who resigned from her position as Trelawny Southern MP and as Speaker of the House of Representatives in September 2023, citing damage to her reputation, but was re-elected this November in a by-election — had been under probe by the Integrity Commission in relation to her statutory declarations for the period 2015-2021, and specifically as it relates to the purchase of a motor vehicle in the amount of $6 million which was financed by a loan from Sagicor Bank.

The commission’s director of investigation, Kevon Stephenson, in a report tabled in Parliament, had recommended disciplinary action due to “the seriousness of Mrs Dalrymple-Philibert’s conduct”. The charges laid by the Integrity Commission in September 2023 were four counts of making a false statement in a statutory declaration between 2015 and 2017. She was also charged with four counts of breaching section 43(2)(a) of the Integrity Commission Act, 2017 for making a false statement in a statutory declaration between 2018 and 2020.

Dalrymple-Philibert, through her attorneys, had sought to have the case discontinued, arguing that the commission charged her under the wrong section of the law.

“There was a preliminary point that was taken before the commencement of any trial in the matter and those arguments were heard before now, and today the judge ruled that the matter should go to trial,” Champagnie explained on Friday afternoon.

The attorney said the legal team appreciated the reasoning of the Parish Court judge in arriving at his decision.

“He gave a very, very comprehensive decision. He spent over an hour and a half. The essence of it was that much of what was submitted in the way of the preliminary points could really and truly only be addressed in the final analysis by a trial to determine certain issues. So, on that basis, he ruled that there should be a trial to ventilate the issues; he would not disturb the prosecution of it,” Champagnie said.

“Interestingly enough, some comments were made about the Act itself in relation to certain complaints that we had. Note was made of the fact that portions of the Act were silent on the complaints that we were making; like, for instance, as a simple example, we had said the matter should have had the benefit of the review of a commission under the Act before the charges, but he pointed to the fact that whereas the Act spoke about who should constitute the members of the commission it didn’t say specifically what the commission had in terms of powers, whether to treat it in a particular way,” Champagnie said further.

“So the long and short of it is that he indicated that much of the submissions that were made by the applicant, through her attorneys, were matters that could only be addressed sufficiently in the way of a trial by way of exploratory questions and so on to rule on it,” he told the Observer.

“So, for my part, I indicated that I would need time to review his decision, because it was so comprehensive and we would need a date to return, so that date is the seventh of February, and the trial itself is slated to commence on March 31 next year,” he added.

In the meantime, he said his client, who had never shied away from the situation, is in fighting mode.

“Even before being charged for the offence — and the judge took note of this — at the interview she sought to correct the records and said, ‘It was an oversight; yes, I do have this and I did not declare,’” Champagnie stated.

“I think how he (judge) put it is, the submissions and the arguments you have put before us are best explored in the realm of a trial because there are certain questions that would have to be answered and we can’t determine the truth of that and the rationale behind it unless it is coming from the witness box in the way of evidence,” the attorney said.

In September 2023 Dalrymple-Philibert issued a statement explaining that she had forgotten to include the motor vehicle, which was primarily used by her sister, in her declarations.

Declaring that she has “nothing to hide”, Dalrymple-Philibert explained that in 2015 she had applied for and obtained a concession to purchase a 2015 motor vehicle.

“The vehicle was purchased for $6 million and financed by a loan of $5.8 million from Sagicor Bank. The loan was taken out by Lincoln Eatmon, my sister’s spouse, and a deposit of $200,000 was paid by both my husband and Mr Eatmon,” she said.

“The vehicle was used primarily by my sister, her spouse, and her son (my nephew), and occasionally by me when I am in Kingston. This is due to the fact that my husband and I owned more than one motor vehicle and, as a rural MP, I preferred driving an SUV because of the rough terrain that I am accustomed to traversing when in South Trelawny,” she said.

Dalrymple-Philibert said that the Government had placed a three-year restriction on her ability to sell or transfer the vehicle, noting that it remained in her name and was never sold to anyone until May 2023. Further, she said, Sagicor Bank had placed a lien on the title until the loan was repaid in 2022.

“Therefore, my ownership of the vehicle was a public record at Tax Administration Jamaica, the bank, the insurance company, and the Motor Vehicle Examination Department. As stated earlier, the vehicle was primarily used by my sister and her family, and at the time of filing my statutory declaration I honestly forgot about the vehicle and did not include it among the list of other vehicles I declared,” she said.

Dalrymple-Philibert said that when the Integrity Commission called her to meet with them, she reviewed her file and called the clerk to the Houses of Parliament and requested a copy of the list of vehicles that she had acquired using the motor vehicle concession available to public sector employees.

“Having received the list, which confirmed the 2015 vehicle, I revealed to the Integrity Commission that the vehicle was unintentionally omitted from my statutory declaration,” she said.

However, in the report, the director of investigation stated that he was in possession of a letter of response dated March 29, 2022, from Dalrymple-Philibert in which she indicated that she did not own a 2015 Mercedes Benz GLA 250.