High Court: DPP's failure to respond to FOIA 'unacceptable'

THE Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) came in for a tongue-lashing by the High Court for failing to respond to a request from a former murder accused.

The admonition came from Justice Frank Seepersad as he ruled in favour of Makesi Felix, who sought information relating to his 2016 prosecution on September 22.

“It is evident that the director failed to discharge the statutorily-imposed obligation imposed upon him, and he did not comply with the requirements of section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).” This section compels the public authority to decide within 30 days of a request.

“The obligation under section 15 is not discretionary…” the judge stressed.

Felix, who was arrested in Marabella and charged with the murder of his neighbour Rodney Gloud, spent more than seven years in prison before being acquitted by a jury in September 2024. He claims prosecutorial delays caused him to remain in custody for nearly four years before his indictment was filed in the High Court in October 2023.

Following his acquittal, Felix submitted a FOIA request in November 2024 seeking disclosure of case files, prosecutorial advice, and policies governing the filing of indictments. After receiving no response, he initiated judicial review proceedings in June 2025. The DPP’s office failed to appear at multiple hearings and remained unrepresented throughout the matter.

Justice Seepersad issued an order of mandamus compelling the DPP to provide Felix with a decision on documents related to his 2016 prosecution.

He also criticised the DPP’s inaction, calling it “unacceptable” and warning that it undermines public trust.

“The court is constrained to register its disappointment and dismay over the director’s disregard of his statutory obligation. (This) disappointment is compounded by the fact that the director has failed, refused, and/ or neglected to participate in the proceedings before this court.

“The behaviour displayed in this matter is unacceptable and only serves to undermine public trust and confidence in an office which plays a pivotal role in the criminal justice system.

“The right to access information held by public authorities benefits all citizens. It is enshrined under the FOIA and the same is paramount in a society where public authorities are deeply distrusted and the decisions which are effected by them are often shielded from public scrutiny.”

He stressed that the FOIA represents a “radical departure from the culture of secrecy” and must be defended to preserve transparency and accountability.

“The director’s actions in this matter amount to an anachronism and stand as an anathema to the very ethos of the protection which the FOIA provides.

“Delay in the criminal justice system has to be addressed, and the items of information requested by the claimant may provide an explanation as to the reasons for the nearly four-year pre-trial delay which occurred.

“The right of access to information is especially paramount within the criminal justice system, where fairness demands accountability and transparency by all stakeholders.

“This court will not countenance any attempts by the director to erode, negative, or render illusory the said right and will jealously guard the same to ensure, insofar as no exceptions to the right exist or are operative, that a decision is made relative to the information sought.

“In the circumstances, this court declares that the Director of Public Prosecutions has breached section 15 of the FOIA.”

The judge added, “Section 15 of the FOIA imposed upon the director a positive, clear, and unqualified duty to act.

“Having already declared that there has been a breach of this duty, this court is also resolute in its view, especially when regard is had to the director’s deafening silence and his disregard for the authority of the court having elected to not appear, that a mandatory order is required to compel him to make an access decision in respect of the claimant’s freedom of information request.

“TT is a constitutional democracy. No one is above the law, and this court will fiercely defend the right of every citizen to fair and equal treatment by public authorities and will forcefully insist upon the discharge of statutory obligations by public bodies.”

The DPP was also ordered to pay Felix’s legal costs, which will be assessed at a later date. Ganesh Saroop and Anju Ramkissoon represented Felix.