No Transparency For Caymanian Prosecutions: Ten Months After A Freedom Of Information Request Was Submitted, The Ombudsman Denies Appeal Regarding Information On The Number Of Cases Not Prosecuted By The Office Of The Director Of Public Prosecutions

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By Alric Lindsay

On October 7, 2024, a freedom of information request was submitted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting data on the number of matters that the DPP decided not to prosecute from 2017, the nature of allegations and the reasons for each decision. On November 4, 2024, and November 26, 2024, the DPP refused the request on the basis that the task would involve an unreasonable diversion of DPP’s resources. The matter was appealed to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman responded on July 31, 2025, denying the appeal, agreeing with the DPP that the request for data would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources.

Transparency issues

During the process of appeal to the Ombudsman, attempts were made by Blackbox Insights to narrow the request for DPP’s data for the period (between 2022 and 2024) showing its decisions not to prosecute ganja offences (including cannabis-related offences, including cannabinol derivatives) and firearms offences (including firearms-related offences). The data request aimed to understand whether there was a higher number of decisions not to prosecute tourists versus Caymanians and the reasons for the DPP’s decision. Since the Ombudsman has denied the appeal to obtain the data, there is now no public transparency on this matter. Residents seeking transparency on this critical issue should contact their MPs to discuss the implications.

As indicated in the initial submissions to the Ombudsman, residents should discuss the following specifics with their MP:

❖ Leadership and Oversight: The inability to provide information can indicate a lack of effective leadership and oversight within the DPP’s office. Governance structures should include mechanisms for regular reporting and accountability, and failure in this area raises questions about the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the DPP’s office.

❖Policy Implementation: Governance frameworks often require adherence to policies regarding data collection and reporting. The DPP’s inability to provide this data suggests potential gaps in policy implementation or a failure to prioritize essential functions.

❖Public Confidence: Transparency is crucial for public trust in the justice system. When the DPP cannot share statistical information, it may lead to public scepticism about the fairness and effectiveness of prosecutorial decisions, which can undermine confidence in the legal system.

❖Lack of Accountability: Transparency allows stakeholders, including the public, to hold the DPP accountable for its prosecutorial decisions. Without access to information, it becomes difficult to assess whether decisions not to prosecute are justified or consistent, leading to potential perceptions of arbitrary or biased decision-making.

In fact, if the DPP provides transparency, then it may reveal that decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute are primarily based on nationality. Factual examples are years of DPP decisions not to prosecute non-Caymanians arriving at the airport with firearms and cannabis. In a majority of these cases, Caymanians are prosecuted and get a criminal record, while non-Caymanians only receive a fine.

❖ Performance Measurement: Accountability frameworks often depend on clear metrics for evaluating performance. Without statistical data, it becomes challenging to assess the DPP’s effectiveness in managing prosecutions, leading to potential inefficiencies and a lack of accountability for outcomes.

❖Resource Allocation: Claims of insufficient resources can highlight broader systemic issues, such as inadequate funding or support for the justice system. This raises questions about how resources are allocated and whether the DPP’s office is being appropriately supported to fulfil its mandate.

❖Impact on Victims and Society: If the DPP is unable to provide transparency regarding prosecutorial decisions, it can have serious implications for victims of crime and society at large, particularly concerning the perceived legitimacy of the legal system and the protection of public safety.

Overall, the inability to produce statistical information due to resource constraints raises critical concerns about governance, transparency, and accountability within the prosecutorial system, highlighting the need for systemic reforms to ensure that the DPP can fulfill its essential roles effectively. Specific concerns arise under section 57 of the Constitution because, in the absence of records, it cannot be confirmed how or whether the DPP is effectively discharging its functions. If the DPP is not effectively discharging its functions, then appropriate disciplinary action should be recommended under Section 106 of the Constitution.