Judge orders Petrotrin to release gas leak report

A HIGH Court judge has urged public authorities to become familiar with the case law on freedom of information requests and pay particular attention to the principles of accountability, good governance and transparency, which, he said, leaned heavily in favour of disclosure, except where there were strong reasons not to do so.

“In turn, more accountability, good governance and greater transparency ultimately result in a more just and equal society,” Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh said, as he ordered Petrotrin to disclose a report prepared by an investigative team on an incident on September 21, 2017, when a group of workers was exposed to hydrogen sulfide gas at a rig.

Petrotrin has ten days in which to provide the report to Gabriel Jacob, a former casual worker with the company.

Jacob had challenged the company’s decision to deny him access to the report on the basis it was exempt since it was protected by legal professional privilege.

But Boodoosingh said there was an absence of answers from Petrotrin on the reason the report was prepared, throwing substantial doubt on whether it was for legal advice as it claimed.

In analysing the evidence and the authorities on freedom of information requests, Boodoosingh said the public’s interest strongly favoured disclosure of the report.

In particular, he said Jacob had a right to the report because he was injured; ought to know what the only investigation into the incident revealed; it might contain important information for his doctors; the others injured also had a right to know; Petrotrin was a state-owned company supported by public funds at the time; the public had a right to information about the safety and health practices of the company; and the community where the rig existed might also have legitimate interest in knowing what happened and any successor company could learn from the investigation, among other factors.

“This was an escape of a toxic gas into the environment. Toxic gas travels. There may be persons in the community who were affected or who may be interested to know what took place in their community

“The protection of the environment is a strong public interest factor which favours disclosure to which every member of the public has a legitimate interest in,” he said, adding that there was also a strong public interest factor that polluters should be held accountable and information accessible to the public on what happened.

“Disclosure promotes accountability and transparency,” Boodoosingh added.

He also said it was odd that Petrotrin would stand on a legal professional privilege argument on a matter that affected health and safety, since, notwithstanding the obviously strong weight such privileges carry, in Jacob’s case numerous factors outweighed that consideration.

The judge also said since litigation was now conducted with cards face-up, the release of the report and its contents might have served to dissuade Jacob from embarking on litigation and not clog up the system with a lawsuit unlikely to succeed.

In his decision, Boodoosingh said the refusal to release the report smacked of bad faith and was unjustified, as he deemed the decision unlawful and quashed it.

Jacob was represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Alvin Pariagsingh, Che Dindial and Robert Abdool-Mitchell. Russell Martineau, SC, Amirah Rahaman and Marcelle Ferdinand appeared for Petrotrin.