jensen.lavende@guardian.co.tt
High Court Judge Frank Seepersad yesterday said he was disappointed and dismayed by the conduct of Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, who he ruled had failed in his duties by not responding to a Freedom of Information request by a former prison inmate.
In his ex-parte ruling, Seepersad found that the DPP’s Office “breached its statutory duty” under section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act to make an access decision within 30 days of the FOI request from Makesi Felix.
Felix, of Delhi Road, Fyzabad, was charged with the 2015 murder of fellow villager Rodney Gloud. Gloud was shot on April 29 and died at the Siparia Health Facility.
On September 11 last year, Felix was found not guilty of the murder.
Yesterday’s judgment stemmed from Felix’s failed attempt to get responses from Gaspard. According to the history of the case, on November 18, 2024, Felix issued an FOI request seeking nine pieces of information and/or documentation from the DPP in relation to his prosecution for murder. He required the details in an attempt to take legal action against the State, after he waited four years for his matter to be heard.
Section 15 of the act states: “A public authority shall take reasonable steps to enable an applicant to be notified of the approval or refusal of his request as soon as practicable but in any case not later than thirty days after the day on which the request is duly made.”
On February 3, 2025, Felix’s attorneys wrote to the DPP and reminded him of the request and his duty to respond within 30 days.
Seepersad said this amounted to a second opportunity for the DPP to honour his duties.
“The uncontested affidavit evidence has established that the Director did not respond to or acknowledge receipt of the claimant’s freedom of information request, and consequently, he failed to provide the claimant with an access decision within the statutorily-prescribed 30-day period. It is therefore 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 FOI Act,” Seepersad said.
In his written judgment, Seepersad did not mince his words against the DPP, who was not present in court. He said the obligation under Section 15 of the act is not discretionary, adding he was disappointed and dismayed by Gaspard’s disregard.
“The court’s 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.”
Seepersad said the right to access information is paramount in a society where public authorities are deeply distrusted and their decisions are often shielded from public scrutiny.
“This court will fiercely defend any right which promotes 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.”
He said delays in the criminal justice system must be addressed, adding that Felix’s requests may have provided an explanation as to the reasons for the nearly four-year pre-trial delay.
“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 same so as to ensure, insofar as no exceptions to the right exist or are operative, that a decision is made relative to the information sought.”
Seepersad ordered Gaspard to render a decision on the request for access to official documents dated November 18, 2024, within seven days and to inform Felix whether his application was approved or refused in accordance with section 15 of the act.
On the issue of costs, Seepersad proposed that it be assessed by the court and that Felix be paid.
Ganesh Saroop and Anju Ramkissoon represented Felix.
