THE Appeal Court on Friday backed the July 31, 2025 ruling of Supreme Court judge Justice Althea Jarrett blocking the disclosure of certain files in the legal battle between Prime Minister Andrew Holness and the Integrity Commission (IC).

According to the court, in a ruling handed down on Friday, Justice Jarrett “approached each issue with the requisite care and applied the governing legal principles in a manner that cannot be faulted”.

Justice Jarrett had granted the parties leave to appeal her 2025 ruling wherein she refused an application by the prime minister’s team for disclosure of several unredacted documents, and rejected its application to strike out aspects of the then Integrity Commission’s director of information’s affidavit based on them “being irrelevant and an abuse of process”.

The prime minister’s legal team had argued that the paragraphs were “scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious” and that their prejudicial value outweighed any probative worth.

The legal team, which indicated that it would challenge the decision at the appellate level, said the issues were of critical importance to the overall fairness of the proceedings. Jarrett had ordered a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.

Friday, in handing down its ruling, the Appeal Court said,“in all the circumstances” it was “satisfied that the appellants have failed to demonstrate any error of law, fact, or principle in the learned judge’s approach to the question of disclosure”.

According to the court, Jarrett “correctly applied the governing Integrity Commission Act and Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) provisions, exercised her discretion in accordance with established principles, and acted within the bounds of proper judicial restraint when declining to order inspection of the unredacted documents”.

The Appeal Court further indicated that having read Jarrett’s reasons for her ruling in their entirety, it was of the view that she meticulously reviewed the affidavits, applied the correct principles of the CPR, and conducted the necessary balancing exercise.

“There is no basis to fairly conclude that she misapprehended the evidence or the law. Her reasoning reflects a proper exercise of discretion and is consistent with established principles governing evidential admissibility in judicial review proceedings,” the Appeal Court stated.

In dismissing the appeal and affirming the Orders made by Jarrett the judges of the Court of Appeal said, “her conclusions concerning the relevance of the impugned affidavit evidence, the proper scope of the judicial review proceedings, and the effect of her unchallenged findings at the leave stage were firmly grounded in established authority.

“Also, in striking out those portions of the amended fixed date claim form that sought, in substance, to re-litigate matters already determined, the learned judge acted within her case management powers and correctly sought to prevent an abuse of the court’s process. [We] do not find that any error of fact, law or principle on the part of the learned judge has been demonstrated. Accordingly, the appeal fails,” the Appeal Court ruled as it also lifted the stay of proceedings ordered by Justice Jarrett.

The prime minister has maintained that he has not broken the law since the tabling of an Integrity Commission report in 2024 that contained recommendations that the Financial Investigation Division (FID) and Tax Administration Jamaica (TAJ) examine his financial dealings.

Holness was granted leave by the Supreme Court in 2024 to apply for judicial review of the Integrity Commission’s (IC) report on his statutory declarations, challenging processes engaged by the IC and its Director of Investigations Kevon Stephenson.

The prime minister is seeking a declaration that the commission acted unfairly and unlawfully in its conduct of an investigation into his statutory declarations.