“(3) Before the Public Service Commission makes any appointment to an office to which this section applies, it shall consult the Prime Minister. (4) A person shall not be appointed to an office to which subsection (3) applies if the Prime Minister signifies to the Public Service Commission his objection to the appointment of that person to that office. (5) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), subsection (3) applies to the offices of Permanent Secretary, Chief Technical Officer, Director of Personnel Administration, to a head of a department of government, to the chief professional adviser in a Ministry of Government and to the office of Deputy to any of these offices. (6) Power to make appointments on transfer to the following offices shall vest in the Prime Minister: (a) any office of Permanent Secretary from one such office to another such office carrying the same salary; (b) any office the holder of which is required to reside outside Trinidad and Tobago for the proper discharge of his functions, and such offices in the Ministry Of External Affairs as may from time to time be designated by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Public Service Commission.” (a) any office of Permanent Secretary from one such office to another such office carrying the same salary; (b) any office the holder of which is required to reside outside Trinidad and Tobago for the proper discharge of his functions, and such offices in the Ministry Of External Affairs as may from time to time be designated by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Public Service Commission.”
“In exercise of the power vested in me under Section 121(6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, I do hereby appoint you, Ms Feroza Ramjohn, Foreign Service Executive Officer II, to the High Commission of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, London, United Kingdom, with effect from the date of assumption by you of the duties of the post.”
“As provided for in Regulation 5(3) [of the 1977 Regulations], the exigencies of the service require that you assume duty at the High Commission as soon as possible. … In keeping with Regulation 7(1) [of the 1977 Regulations], before your departure arrangements will be made for your medical examination and psychiatric assessment.”
“(2) Subject to subregulation (3), an officer shall be given at least two months’ notice of a posting or a transfer. (3) Where the exigencies of the service require, an officer may be given a shorter period of notice. (4) A Foreign Service Officer who after being notified in accordance with subregulation (2) or (3) refuses without reasonable excuse to accept a posting shall be liable to – (a) disciplinary action; (b) transfer; or (c) both disciplinary action and transfer.”
“I have reconsidered the appointment of Feroza Ramjohn in light of the contents of the Security Department Intelligence Report. So as to avoid any possibility of further damage to the reputation of the Republic, I hereby revoke the appointment. Please advise me as a matter of urgency on a safe and appropriate replacement against whom there can be no question raised in this moment of crisis.”
“I wish to refer to [the letter dated 26 May] and to advise you that your transfer to the High Commission for the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago in London has been rescinded. You should, therefore, discontinue preparations for an early departure. With best wishes.”
“On Saturday23 June 2001 , information received from an official at the Permanent Mission to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago in New York tends to show that Ms Feroza Ramjohn of the Registry Foreign Affairs Office in Trinidad had been involved in a major conspiracy to steal a Diplomatic Pouch containing 200 blank Trinidad and Tobago passports that was sent from the Foreign Affairs Office Trinidad to the Permanent Mission to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago in New York on BW 5278, June 05, 2001.”
“In the circumstances of this case the respondent was treated unfairly by the failure of the [Prime Minister] to inform her of the case against her and to give her an opportunity to make representations.”
“Promotion of Mr Ganga Persad Kissoon as Commissioner of State Lands Reference is made to your correspondence … After lengthy and careful consideration of the suitability of the candidate proposed, I am not in agreement with this appointment. The reasons for my objection are as follows: A considerable amount of time has elapsed since the interviews were conducted for this position on July 24, 2001. During this period, a number of initiatives have been undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources in an attempt to enhance the land management systems in Trinidad and Tobago. The Government has already successfully obtained passage of a legislative package which includes an Act governing Land Title and Registration; Land Adjudication; and Land Tribunal. Cabinet has already approved the establishment of a Land Management Authority which is intended to effectively manage the nation’s land portfolio. Draft legislation is now being prepared by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Additionally, there is the Government’s thrust to distribute and effectively manage the large landholdings of the former Caroni (1975) Ltd. Moreover, it is evident that the responsibilities assigned to the office of the Commissioner of State Lands have significantly increased in scope from those which existed in July 2001. The effective management of land in Trinidad and Tobago will be re-organised into a modern and efficient system geared towards achieving Government’s goal of developed country status by 2020. I am of the view that the person appointed to this position must be visionary, committed and dynamic to lead this transformation effort. As a result of the foregoing, I am therefore recommending that the candidates, who [were] placed first, second and third in the interviews held on 24th July, 2001 be re-interviewed.”
“With reference to your letter … dated19 October 2004 , I should like to inform you that I do not support the proposed promotion of Mr Ganga Persad Kissoon, Assistant Commissioner of Valuations, Valuation Division, Ministry of Finance, as Commissioner of State Lands, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources.”
“I have no objections”
“The Prime Minister acted contrary to the rules of natural justice by making a decision to object to [Mr Kissoon’s] promotion without informing him of the factors that militate against him and affording him the opportunity to make representations in his favour.”
“16(1) Where a person is adversely affected by a decision to which this Act applies, he may request from the decision-maker a statement of the reasons for the decision.” (The 2000 Act, by virtue of section 5(1), applies to decisions of, amongst others, a “public body, public authority or a person acting in the exercise of a public duty or function in accordance with any law … ”) “20. An inferior court, tribunal, public body, public authority or a person acting in the exercise of a public duty or function in accordance with any law shall exercise that duty or perform that function in accordance with the principles of natural justice or in a fair manner.”
“18(1) In considering the eligibility of officers for promotion, the Commission shall take into account seniority, experience, educational qualifications, merit and ability, together with relative efficiency of such officers, and in the event of an equality of efficiency of two or more officers, shall give consideration to the relative seniority of the officers available for promotion to the vacancy.”
“These officials are so directly concerned with the formulation of the policy and the supervision of its implementation that they must be acceptable to the political chiefs with whom they must have a close working relationship. This does permit some measure of political influence in purely public service appointments but is necessary on purely practical grounds. We would mention that this recommendation of ours is in keeping with the views of the Public Service Associations as expressed to us.”
“In contradistinction to the decision with regard to the other officers, there was no disciplinary element to the decision in the applicant’s case. He was returned to his force because the director general had lost confidence in his ability to carry out his responsibilities. It seems to me that this was an entirely operational decision similar to the kinds of decision that are made with officers up and down the country every day of the week. Examples are transferring officers from uniform to CID or from traffic to other duties. These, to my mind, are run of the mill management decisions involving deployment of staff or running the force. They are decisions that relate to the individual officer personally and have no public element. They are, if you like, the nuts and bolts of operating a police force, be it the national crime squad or any other. It is, in my judgment, quite inappropriate for the courts to exercise any supervisory jurisdiction over police operational decisions of this kind. There is, quite simply, no public law element to them.”
“39. It is common ground that the impugned decision was honestly made and that no question of bad faith arises. The judge concluded that, whilst it may be sensible and desirable for reasons to be given when terminating an officer’s secondment, the sensitive nature of the work and information in the national crime squad’s hands may exceptionally make this inappropriate in the public interest. This was one of those cases. The director general went as far as he reasonably could in informing the applicant why his secondment was being terminated. The decision was subsequently reviewed and maintained by him. There was no requirement in law to do more. 45. … The very nature of the work to which he was seconded is such as to be likely to involve sensitive intelligence information. It is relevant to look at what the applicant was told about why he could not be told more. Initially it was that the professional standards unit of the national crime squad had received information that he had failed to maintain the professional standards required of someone in his position and that the deputy director general no longer had confidence in his ability to carry out his responsibilities; . . . Finally in February 2002 the applicant was told by his deputy chief constable, after the decision to terminate his secondment had been confirmed as correctly taken, that his development needs required attention to ‘the skill areas of informant handling and decision-making, bearing in mind the difficulties surrounding the source of the intelligence. 48. In my judgment the deputy director general was entitled to have in mind the risks attached to disclosing to the applicant the full circumstances of why his secondment was being brought summarily to an end. This does not of course mean that fairness goes out of the window altogether and nor, so far as I can see, did it in this case. The bottom line is the deputy director general acted in good faith and gave such information as he felt he could. Furthermore, the decision was reviewed and some further information provided as events unfolded. What the court cannot do in a case such as this is scrutinise the decision and form its own view whether the deputy director general was objectively justified in withholding information.”
“the interest of national security overrode the requirements of natural justice namely the duty to inform the respondent of allegations made against her in the Intelligence Report, and to permit her an opportunity to make representation in respect of these allegations. Indeed any revelation of these allegations to the respondent may have brought about the very consequences to national security that was to be avoided.”
“While cases may no doubt arise in which it can properly be held that denying the subject of a decision an adequate opportunity to put his case is not in all circumstances unfair, I would expect these cases to be of great rarity. There are a number of reasons for this: 1. Unless the subject of the decision has had an opportunity to put his case it may not be easy to know what case he could or would have put if he had had the chance. 2. As memorably pointed out by Megarry J in John v Rees[1970] Ch 345 at p 402, experience shows that that which is confidently expected is by no means always that which happens. 3. It is generally desirable that decision-makers should be reasonably receptive to argument, and it would therefore be unfortunate if the complainant’s position became weaker as the decision-maker’s mind became more closed. 4. In considering whether the complainant’s representations would have made any difference to the outcome the court may unconsciously stray from its proper province of reviewing the propriety of the decision-making process into the forbidden territory of evaluating the substantial merits of a decision. 5. This is a field in which appearances are generally thought to matter. 6. Where a decision-maker is under a duty to act fairly the subject of the decision may properly be said to have a right to be heard, and rights are not to be lightly denied.”
“The restructuring of the Ministry requires a person with a strong Land Management background to head the Division of the Commissioner of State Lands. The functions of land administration have been separated from those of Land Surveys. Mrs Elder-Alexander is the person with that Land Management background and her qualification of Master of Science in Geographic Information Systems helps in that regard.”
“requires that before the veto is exercised in relation to an applicant who is proposed by the Commission for appointment he is informed of what there is against him and given an opportunity to make representations on his behalf. This is required in all cases.”
“forfeiture cases”, “application cases” and “expectation cases”, the latter “an intermediate category” in which “the applicant has some legitimate expectation from what has already happened that his application will be granted.”
“In the circumstances of this case the respondent was treated unfairly by the Prime Minister’s failure to exercise his power of veto rationally or at least to provide a rational explanation for exercising it against the respondent’s appointment.”
“On an application for judicial review, the Court may award damages to the applicant if (a) the applicant has included in the application a claim for damages arising from any matter to which the application relates; and (b) the Court is satisfied that, if the claim had been made in an action begun by the applicant at the time of making the application, the applicant could have been awarded damages.”
“Subject to this section, a document is an exempt document if it is a document the disclosure of which under this Act – (a) would disclose matter in the nature of opinion, advice or recommendation prepared by an officer or Minister of Government, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place between officers, Ministers of Government, or an officer and a Minister of Government, in the course of, or for the purpose of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of a public authority; and (b) would be contrary to the public interest.”