Yesterday, I was a member of a panel speaking on the topic, "Prosecutorial Discretion and Caribbean Constitutionalism."
The following is an excerpt from my presentation, entitled "Lifting the Veil," in which I respectfully submit that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in all jurisdictions where such office-holders have been granted wide powers of discretion to institute, undertake, take over, continue or discontinue criminal proceedings against any person before any court in respect of any offence, ought to give reasons for his decision in instances in which the discretion not to prosecute has been exercised.
At first blush, the name of the presentation might appear wrong, because the term "lifting the veil" is usually associated with the concept of going behind the separate legal identity of a company in order to claim personal liability from those who actually manage and/or control and/or own the entity.
Of course, in the context of this discourse, the phrase is being used to promote the position that a DPP who by virtue of the Constitution is given wide powers and operates as an independent institution ought, in the interest of transparency and accountability, to provide reasons, to be made public, to explain or justify his decision not to prosecute a person in circumstances in which there may be sufficient evidence to call upon the person to answer a charge or not to initiate proceedings in cases in which there have been serious allegations made against a person.
http://www.guardian.co.tt/digital/new-members