In Brief
- Unlawful refusal: A High Court judge ruled that the Teaching Service Commission (TSC) acted unlawfully when it denied a secondary school teacher access to his disciplinary investigation documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
- Inconsistent practices: While the TSC claimed releasing the files could discourage future witness cooperation, the court found this unjustified, noting the Commission had already released similar unredacted documents in four previous cases.
- Independent statutory rights: Justice Frank Seepersad rejected the TSC’s argument that the documents would be provided later during the tribunal, ruling that internal disciplinary procedures do not suspend a citizen’s right to request information.
- Public interest failure: The judge criticised the TSC for failing to properly conduct the public interest test.
- Call for transparency: Reminding the Commission that ‘public power is accompanied by public responsibility,’ Justice Seepersad stated that transparency and accountability are essential safeguards and not impediments to good administration.
By Prior Beharry
A High Court judge has ruled that the Teaching Service Commission (TSC) acted unlawfully when it refused to provide a secondary school teacher with access to disciplinary investigation documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
In a ruling delivered on Monday, Justice Frank Seepersad said, “Public power is accompanied by public responsibility.”
He determined that the TSC failed to properly justify its refusal to release an investigating officer’s report, witness statements, and other material requested by Technical Vocational Teacher I, Adriel Cruickshank.
Cruickshank, who is facing allegations of misconduct before a three-member disciplinary tribunal, requested the documents in March 2025 to help prepare his defence.
The TSC denied the request in July 2025, citing an exemption under section 32(1)(b) of the FOIA which protects records containing information communicated in confidence. The Commission argued that releasing the documents could discourage future witnesses from cooperating candidly in investigations.
The TSC also maintained that the relevant material would be provided to the teacher at the appropriate stage of the disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with the Education Regulations.
However, attorneys for the claimant successfully argued that the TSC’s refusal was irrational and procedurally unfair. To support their case, Cruickshank’s legal team produced unredacted investigating officers’ reports from four other similar disciplinary matters—referred to as “comparator matters”—which the TSC had previously disclosed.
Justice Seepersad said, “Public power is accompanied by public responsibility. Where Parliament has conferred a right of access to information held by a public authority, that right cannot be displaced by administrative preference, institutional convenience or an assertion of confidentiality which does not satisfy the statutory test. Transparency and accountability are not impediments to good administration; they are among its essential safeguards.
“Ultimately, judicial restraint does not require judicial abdication. Although the Court must respect the lawful province of administrative decision-makers, it is duty bound to intervene where public power is exercised without adequate regard to the statutory criteria which govern it.”
Justice Seepersad noted that the TSC failed to explain why Cruickshank’s case was treated differently from the four previous cases.
He said, “A public authority cannot simply rely upon an abstract proposition that confidentiality encourages cooperation when its own previous practice presents concrete evidence which calls for a more particularised explanation.”
The court found no cogent evidence to support the TSC’s claim that releasing the information would result in a “reasonable likelihood” of future impairment to its investigative abilities.
Justice Seepersad noted that there was no evidence the TSC had even attempted to redact exempt information from the documents before denying the request outright, a step required by the FOIA.
Addressing the TSC’s argument that the documents would eventually be disclosed during the disciplinary tribunal, Justice Seepersad ruled that a parallel disciplinary process does not suspend a citizen’s rights.
“The existence of a disciplinary process does not, without statutory authority, diminish that independent right of access,” he noted, adding that exercising a FOIA right is not an impermissible circumvention of the disciplinary process.
The judge also heavily criticised the TSC’s handling of the public interest test mandated by section 35 of the FOIA. While the TSC stated in its refusal letter that the test “was conducted,” Justice Seepersad ruled that simply stating the test was done is insufficient without demonstrating how the competing interests were weighed.
He said that a person facing serious disciplinary allegations that could affect their livelihood and professional reputation must be able to properly understand the evidential foundation of the case against them.
Justice Seepersad said, “The public interest is best served when effective disciplinary processes are engaged and those processes operate fairly.”
He said that the TSC was required to confront the severe consequences that withholding the investigative material could have on the claimant’s ability to mount a proper defence.
Attorneys Navindra Ramnanan instructed by Ricky Pandohee appeared for Cruickshank while Makeda Browne-Alfred and Rachael L Jacob instructed by Liane Thomas and Melissa Papoonsingh represented the Teaching Service Commission.
