Makesi Felix v The Director of Public Prosecutions

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Seepersad, J.
• Judgment Date: 22 September 2025
• Neutral Citation: TT 2025 HC 280
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV2025-01974

Makesi Felix

and

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Seepersad, J.

Suit No.: CV2025-01974

High Court

Appearances:

Mr. Ganesh Saroop instructed by Ms. Anju Ramkissoon for the Claimant.

The Director of Public Prosecutions did not appear and was unrepresented.

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Seepersad, J.

1 By ex parte application, this Court granted leave to the claimant to judicially review the failure and/or omission of the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the defendant”/“the Director”) to render an access decision in respect of a freedom of information request (“the FOIA request”) which he made.

2 The claimant then commenced this action by Fixed Date Claim Form dated and filed on 16th June 2025, and he sought the following reliefs:

• a. A declaration that the defendant breached its statutory duty under section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act (“ FOIA”) to take reasonable steps to enable the claimant to be notified of the approval or refusal of his request as soon as practicable, but in any case, not later than 30 days after the date on which the request is duly made;

• b. Alternatively, and/or additionally, a declaration that the defendant has breached its statutory duty under section 15 to make an access decision within 30 days;

• c. An order of mandamus to compel the defendant to render a decision on the claimant's FOIA requests for access to official documents dated 18th November 2024, within seven days hereof, and inform him of whether their application has been approved or refused in accordance with section 15 of the FOIA;

• d. Alternatively, and/or additionally, a declaration that the claimant is entitled to access the requested information pursuant to his application under the FOIA dated the 18th November 2024;

• e. Costs;

• f. Such further other orders, directions or writs as the court considers just and as the circumstances of this case warrant pursuant to section 8(1) of the Judicial Review Act, Chap 7:08; and

• g. An order that permission be granted to the claimant to rely on the Affidavit filed in support of the ex parte application, together with the exhibits attached thereto in support of his claim and to dispense with the filing of an Affidavit in support of the claimant's Claim Form.

3 On 17th June 2025, the Solicitor General and the defendant were both electronically served with copies of all the filed documents in this matter; however, no response from either party was received.

4 On 18th June 2025, personal service was effected by serving all the documents filed in this matter upon one Ms. Lazina Mohammed, who was duly authorised to accept service on behalf of The Director.

5 On 16th July 2025, this matter was listed for its first Case Management Conference before this Court, but the defendant was absent and unrepresented. As a result, this Court instructed the claimant's attorneys-at-law to serve an Adjourned Notice of Hearing on the Director and adjourned the matter to 4th September, 2025.

6 By Adjourned Notice of Hearing dated 17th July 2025, the defendant and Solicitor General were both served with the Notice via e-mail.

7 By Affidavit of Service dated 4th September, 2025, Instructing Attorney-at-Law for the claimant also deposed that the defendant was personally served with a copy of the Notice of Adjourned Hearing and that the said Ms. Lazina Mohammed once again accepted service on behalf of the Director.

8 At the Case Management Conference on 4th September 2025, the Director failed to appear and was unrepresented. Consequently, this Court issued directions for the filing of submissions in the claim on the relief sought.

BACKGROUND WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE INSTANT CLAIM

9 The claimant was arrested on 18th July 2016 in Marabella in connection with the murder of his neighbour, Rodney Gloud (“the deceased”), who died after being shot at his relative's home in Fyzabad. At the time of his arrest in 2016, the claimant was a 28-year-old father of three children.

10 On 23rd July 2016, the claimant was charged with the murder of the deceased and was subsequently taken to the Siparia Magistrate's Court, where he was denied bail due to the nature of the offence. Thereafter, he was remanded to the Golden Grove Prison.

11 In or around February 2017, the claimant was transferred to the Maximum Security Prison, where he remained until he was acquitted.

12 The claimant was committed to stand trial on 7th May 2019, but the indictment was filed in the San Fernando High Court in October 2023.

13 Consequently, the claimant contends that his period of incarceration was prolonged and that he was the victim of pre-trial delay as his first High Court date was 20th October 2023.

14 The claimant's trial eventually commenced on 2nd September 2024 before a judge and jury, and on 11th September, the jury returned a not guilty verdict.

15 The claimant asserts that if the indictment had been filed promptly, he would not have been deprived of his liberty for over four years.

16 In the circumstances, the claimant became desirous of taking legal action against the State and sought legal advice.

THE FOIA REQUEST

17 Based on legal advice received, on 18th November 2024, a request was made on his behalf to the Director requesting the following documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act:

• i. A list and copy of all and/or any documents which were submitted to the Director or State Counsel who was assigned by the Director to act and advise on this matter in relation to him

• ii. A copy of all and/or any records, notes, evidence, statements and other information which led to his being charged;

• iii. The interim file submitted by the investigator to the Director and/or State Counsel;

• iv. Copies of the minutes, file note and/or instructions/advice giving the complainant instructions to charge him;

• v. Any statement, evidence, notes, records, documents and other information which informed the Director's decision to institute the proceedings against him;

• vi. A copy of the policy, practice, procedure, criteria and protocol to be followed by the Director for the filing of indictments in the High Court after the determination of a preliminary enquiry, including but not limited to the time frame for doing so;

• vii. A copy of the policy, practice, procedure, criteria and protocol that was in fact followed by the Director for the filing of indictments in the High Court after the determination of his preliminary enquiry;

• viii. Copies of any and/or all transcripts in this matter; and

• ix. A complete copy of the file in the possession of the office of the Director as it relates to this matter.

18 No response was received, and the claimant's attorneys-at-law issued a Pre-Action Protocol Letter dated 3rd February 2025, which advised the Director that if the requested information was not provided within 14 days of the request, judicial review proceedings would be initiated against the office.

19 The claimant received no response to any of his requests and commenced the instant claim.

ISSUES

20 The issues which arise for the Court's determination are as follows:

• a. Whether the Director breached section 15 of the FOIA; and

• b. Whether the Court should grant an order of mandamus against the Director in these circumstances.

LAW

21 The Freedom of Information Act empowers members of the public with a general right (subject to stated exceptions) of access to official documents of public authorities and for matters related thereto.

22 Section 3 of the Act states that:

“3. (1) The object of this Act is to extend the right of members of the public to access to information in the possession of public authorities by—

• (a) making available to the public information about the operations of public authorities and, in particular, ensuring that the authorisations, policies, rules and practices affecting members of the public in their dealings with public authorities are readily available to persons affected by those authorisations, policies, rules and practices; and

• (b) creating a general right of access to information in documentary form in the possession of public authorities, limited only by exceptions and exemptions necessary for the protection of essential public interests and the private and business affairs of persons in respect of whom information is collected and held by public authorities.

(2) The provisions of this Act shall be interpreted so as to further the object set out in subsection (1) and any discretion conferred by this Act shall be exercised as far as possible so as to facilitate and promote, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, the disclosure of information.”

23 Section 11 of the Act states that, notwithstanding any law to the contrary and subject to the provisions of the Act, it shall be the right of every person to obtain access to an official document.

24 Section 15 of the Act provides:

“15. 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 30 days after the day on which the request is duly made.”

25 In Caribbean Information Access Limited v. The Minister of National Security, Civ. App. No. 170 of 2008, Jamadar, J.A. (as he then was) stated that:

“8. There is no dispute that “the policy, purpose and object of the FOIA are to create a general right of access to information in the possession of public authorities, ‘limited only by exceptions and exemptions necessary for the protection of essential public interests and the private business affairs of persons in respect of whom information is collected and held by public authorities’.” There can also be no dispute that the court, in both interpreting and applying the provisions of the FOIA, is mandated to do so purposively, so as to further the policy, purpose and object stated above. The FOIA provides for a...