ජනසංසදය: January 2012

Shavindra Fernando, Deputy Solicitor-General

The Attorney General had informed the Supreme Court that steps were being taken by the Police Department to gazette the regulations covering the rights of Attorneys-at-Law to
present their clients at police stations.

Deputy Solicitor General Shavindra Fernando also moved for a three month period finalise it.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Shirani A. Bandaranayake, Justices P.A. Ratnayake and Priyasath Dep fixed the matter to be mentioned on May 21.

Petitioner D.W.C. Mohotti in his fundamental rights violation petition had cited Bambalapitiya Police OIC, IGP Jayantha Wickremaratne, National Police Chairman Neville Piyadigama and the Attorney General as respondents.

Sanjeeva Jayawardane appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. President’s Counsel Shibly Aziz with Rohan Sahabandu appeared for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. Deputy Solicitor General Shavindra Fernando with Senior State Counsel Shanaka Wijesinghe appeared for the Attorney General.

In a motion, the Respondents indicated that they wished to settle the case and in pursuance there of, when this matter was called on April 3, 2009 parties agreed to settle this matter and the court directed the parties to file Terms of Settlement by way of motion.

The terms of settlement are as follows:

1. The IGP shall forthwith frame and issue formal rules under and in terms of section 55 of the Police Ordinance as amended duly approved by the Minister, for the purpose of inter alia recognising and protecting the rights of an Attorney-at-law to represent or protect the interest of his/her client at any Police Station, Police Head Quarters and/or any other permanent unit, base, post or such like, that has been established by the Police anywhere in the country, whether such client is a suspect or otherwise;

2. The IGP shall forthwith cause the same to be also duly incorporated in the Departmental Orders of the Police;

3. The IGP shall at all times implement and enforce the said rules issued under Section 55 of the Police Ordinance and copies of such rules shall be issued to the OIC of every Police Station, Head Quarters and/or any other permanent unit, base, post or such like that has been established by the Police situated island-wide and it shall be the responsibility of such OIC to issue copies to every officer under his purview and command and to generally disseminate information with regard to the content and due and strict observance of such rules anywhere in the country;

4. There shall be established as provided for in the said rules, a special committee comprising of a senior officer of the Attorney General’s Department not below the rank of Additional Solicitor General, who shall also be the ex-officio Chairman of the said Committee, the other members shall comprise of the President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, the Director (Legal) of the Police, and a serving member of the National Police Commission;

5. The said Committee shall be charged with the function of monitoring and facilitating the due and proper observance of the above mentioned Police Rules and reporting any breaches thereof to the IGP and generally, to do all such acts that shall serve to promote and foster better relations between the members of the Legal Profession and members of the Police;

6. Such Committee shall also be entitled to make recommendations and report to the IGP, the Attorney General and the National Police Commission, as the case may be, with regard to any breach of such rules and in respect of the proceedings that should be launched thereon, against the officer in question;

7. The meeting of the said Committee shall be convened with reasonable regularity by the Chairman of the said Committee and in addition thereto, in the event of a request being made by any one or more members of the said Committee, as the case may be. (S.S. Selvanayagam)

www.dailymirror.lk
http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/16372-lawyers-rights-at-police-stations-to-be-gazetted.html

හත් අවුරුදු පාසැල් සිසුවෙකුට පහරදුන් පොලිස් ස්ථානාධිපතිට බරපතල වැඩ ඇතිව දෙවසරක සිර දඬුවමක් සහ රුපියල් විසිපන්දහසක වන්දියක් ගෙවීමට නියම කරයි.

කුරුණෑගල මහාධිකරණ විනිසුරු මෙම දඬුවම නියම කළේ පොල්පිතිගම පොලිස් ස්ථානයේ හිටපු ස්ථානාධිපති විජේරත්නටය.

2003 වසරේ ජූලි 29 වන දින, සත් හැවිරිදි සුජිත් ප්‍රියන්තව අත්අඩංගුවට ගෙන වධහිංසා පවරනු ලැබීය.

2008 වසරේදී, හිටපු ස්ථානාධිපති විජේරත්නට එරෙහිව, 1994 අංක 24 දරන වධහිංසා පනත යටතේ, කුරුණෑගල මහාධිකරණයේ නඩු පවරනු ලැබීය.

එම නඩුවේ තීන්දුව, 2012 ජනවාරි 26 වන දින ලබාදෙමින්, පොල්පිතිගම හිටපු ස්ථානාධිපතිවරයාට විරුද්ධව බරපතල වැඩ සහිත සිරදඬුවමක් නියම කළ අතර, රු.25000/- ක වන්දියක් සුජිත් ප්‍රියන්තට ගෙවීමට නියෝග කළේය.

(සම්පූර්ණ විස්තර පසුවට)

නදීකා ලක්මාලි 26 හැවිරිදි සති හයක ගැබිණි කාන්තාවකි. දොඩන්ගොඩ පදිංචිකාරියක් වේ. සිද්දිය වන්නේ 2011.11.25 වැනිදාය. ඇය එදින පවුලේ උදවිය සමග අදිවේගී මාර්ගයේ පිවිසුම් මාර්ගයක් වන දොඩන්ගොඩ අදිවේගී මාර්ගය නැරබීමට ගොස් ඇත.

(Hong Kong, January 19, 2012) A workshop was held for the undergraduate students of the Criminology Department of the Sri Jayawardanapura University on December 19 and 20 2011 on rule of law and prevention of police torture. The workshop was held at the auditorium of the Help Age Institute at Gangodavila.

Janasansaya , a human rights organization conducted workshop.

A total of 37 2nd and 3rd year students participated in the workshop. Prof. Mayura Samarakoon and Mrs. Niranji Wijewardana, a Senior Lecturer attached to the Department of Criminology, also participated in the event. Chiral Perera, the coordinator of Janasansadaya, led the discussions and Mr. WAL Weerasinghe, Ex-Prison Commissioner of Welfare and Mr. E K Ariyadasa, Ex-Assistant Commissioner of Probation were the resource persons.

The first day of the workshop mainly dealt with the education process and an introduction to the current domestic laws pertaining to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments and punishment. The fundamentals of such laws, international recognitions and ratification of those laws in Sri Lanka were the main subjects of the study.

The second day covered the actions of the Sri Lanka Police on the basis of the judgments of the the Supreme Court on allegations of torture, cruel inhuman and degrading treatments and punishments. The problems prevailing in the judicial system were highlighted and critically discussed.

Throughout the two day workshop, audio and visual technologies were used to demonstrate the prevailing problems with live illustrations. The clarification of ideas about the rule of law was the main purpose of the discussions of the workshop. The crisis of the rule of law in Sri Lanka was highlighted.

The YouTube presentation on the workshop may be seen here.

නීති විරෝධී ලෙසට අත්අඩංගුවට ගෙන, රදවා තබාගෙන බොරු චෝදනා නගා රිමාන්ඩ් භාරයට පත්කිරීමට එරෙහිව - මොරොන්තුඩව පොලිස් මුරපොලේ ස්ථානාධිපති පොලිස් පරීක්ෂක ලියනාරච්චි ඇතුලු එම පොලිස් මුරපොලේ පොලිස් නිලධාරීන් පස්දෙනෙකුට එරෙහිව, වසන්ත නිරෝෂන් පවරන ලද මූලික අයිතිවාසිකම් නඩුව ඉදිරියට ගෙනයාමට අවසරය ලබාදුන් ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය, නඩු විභාගයට 2012 ජූනි 14 දිනට නියම කරනු ලැබුවේය.

වසන්ත නිරෝෂන්

වසන්ත නිරෝෂන්ව 2011 ජනවාරි 01 වන දින, ඔහු වැඩකරන වැඩ පොලේදී මොරොන්තුඩුව පොලිස් මුරපොලේ නිලධාරින් විසින් අත්අඩංගුවට ගනු ලැබින.

එයින් අනතුරුව, දින 04ක් නීති විරෝධීව රදවා තබාගෙන, ගංජා ග්‍රෑම් 500 ක් ප්‍රවාහනය කරමින් සිටියදී අත්අඩංගුවට ගත් බවට ව්‍යාජ චෝදනා යටතේ නඩු පවරනු ලැබීය. එම බොරු චෝදනාව නිසා ඔහුට දින 14ක් රිමාන්ඩ් බාරයේ සිටීමටද සිදුවිය.

මහේස්ත්‍රාත් අධිකරණයේදී, පොලිසිය නගා ඇති චෝදනාව ව්‍යාජ එකක් බව ඔප්පු කිරීමෙන් අනතුරුව ඔහු නිදහස් කර හරිනු ලැබීය.

ඔහු ගමන්ගත් බව කියන යතුරුපැදියක් ද මොරෙන්තුඩුව පොලිසිය අධීකරණයට ඉදිරිපත් කර තිබින.

එම යතුරු පැදියේ අයිතිකරු කියා සිටියේ, තම යතුරු පැදිය ෆිනෑන්ස් සමාගම විසින් ගෙනගොස් ඇති බවයි.

පසුව ෆිනෑන්ස් සමාගම, අධිකරණයට ඉදිරිපත්ව යතුරු පැදිය ඔවුන්ගේ සන්තකයෙන් ගන්නා ලදි.

පොලිසියට යතුරු පැදිය ලැබුනේ කෙසේද ? ගංජා ග්‍රෑම් 500 ලැබුනේ කෙසේද ? යන්න සොයා ගන්න තවමත් පොලිසියට බැරිවී ඇත.

තමාව නීති විරෝධීව අත්අඩංගුවට ගැනීම, රදවා තබා ගැනීම, ව්‍යාජ චෝදනා මත නඩු පැවරීම, රිමාන්ඩ් බාරයට පත්කර තැබීම යන කරුණුවලින් මූලික අයිතීන් උල්ලංඝණය කර ඇති බවට ප්‍රකාශ කරන ලෙසට පෙත්සමෙන් ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධීකරණයෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටියේය.

SC/FR 598/2011 දරන එම මූලික අයිතිවාසිකම් නඩුව ඉදිරියට ගෙන යාමට අවසර ලැබී තිබේ.

නමුත් නීති විරෝධීව තරුණයෙකු අත්අඩංගුවට ගෙන, නීති විරෝධීව රදවා තබාගෙන, අධිකරණයට ව්‍යාජ වාර්තා ඉදිරිපත් කර නිර්දෝෂී පුද්ගලයෙකු නිදහස අහිමි කිරීම ගැන හා ඉහත සදහන් කල පරිදි මොරොන්තුඩුව පොලිස් මුරපොලේ ස්ථානාධීපති ඇතුලු නිලධාරීන්ට ගංජා ලැබුනේ කෙසේද ? යතුරු පැදියක් ලැබුනේ කෙසේද යන්න ගැන සොයන්න මේ දක්වාම පොලිසිය ඉදිරිපත්ව නොමැත.

තවමත් මොරොන්තුඩුව පොලිසියේ පොලිස් පරීක්ෂක ලියනාරච්චි ඇතුලු නීති විරෝධී ක්‍රියාවන් හි නියැලුනු නිළධාරීන් සුවසේ සිටිති.

පහලොස් හැවිරිදි දරeවෙක් අත්අඩංගුවට ගෙන පහර දීම අදාලව ගොනු කරන ලද මූලික අයිතිවාසිකම් පෙත්සමට අවසර ලබාදීමට - ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය තීන්දු කළේය.

යටවත්ත පොලිස් ස්ථානයේ සැරයන් ඩග්ලස්, පොලිස් පරීක්ෂක බංඩාර, හෙට්ටි ආරච්ච් හා ස්ථානාධිපති නිෂංක මෙම පෙත්සමේ වග උත්තර කරeවන් වේ.

යටවත්ත පොලිස් බල ප්‍රදේශයේ කුමාරිහාමි, මෙම මූලික අයිතිවාසිකම් පෙත්සම ගොනු කළේ, 15 හැවිරිදි තම පුතා වන, පුබුදුට, යටවත්ත පොලීසියේ නිළධාරීන් අත්අඩංගුවට ගෙන, වධ හිංසා පැමිණවීමට එරෙහිවය.

අසල නිවසක සෙල්ලම් බඩු සොරකම් කළාය යන චෝදනාව මත මෙම දරeවා අත් අඩංගුවට ගෙන තිබින. මාතලේ මහේස්ත්‍රාත් අධිකරණය මෙම දරවාට පොලීසිය පහර දී ඇති බවට තීරණය කර, ඔහු විෂේශඥ අධිකරණ වෛද්‍ය නිළධාරී වෙත ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමට නියම කර තිබින.

තවද, මෙම පහර දීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් මූලික අයිතිවාසිකම් නඩුවක් ගොනු කිරීමට, නීති ආධාර කොමිෂමට නියම කරනු ලැබීය.

2011/11/16 දින ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය හමුවේ මෙම නඩුවේ පෙත්සම්කරු වෙනුවෙන් නීතිඥ පුලස්ති හේවාමාන මහතා ඉදිරිපත් විය.

ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණ විනිසුරු අමරතුංග, විනිසුරු මාසුරුප් හා විනිසුරු ඉමාන් යන මහත්වරුන් ඉදිරියේ පැවැති මෙම නඩුව 2012 ජුනි 11 දින විභාගයට තැබීය.

Do not protect an accused charged before

a court of law

The Asian Human Rights Commission has written the following open letter regarding decision taken by the Attorney General to prosecute in a private plaint filled against a senior police officer:-

“The Asian Human Rights Commission has learned of your decision to take over the prosecution of a Private Plaint filed in the Magistrate's Court of Panadura, without the consent of the Complainant of the said case, upon an application and representations made by and on behalf of the Accused who is a Superintendent of Police. The case bears No. 92368 (Private Plaint)

The decision of the Attorney General was communicated toCourt by the Senior State Counsel who appeared in Court on December 15, 2011, in the case referred to.

The accused in this case is Lesly Hamilton Gregory Cooray who was the Superintendent of Police for Panadura area, at the time that the alleged incident took place. The Complainant is M. Nishantha Fernando Jayawardena.

By this decision you will be protecting an accused charged before a court of law. This is very opposite to what an Attorney General who exercises the public prosecutors role is suppose to do. This is dangerous to the nation as it undermines the rule of law. Your role is to protect the rule of law and not to undermine it. Thus this is gross abuse of your powers. The AG's power to exercise nolleproseque ( Not to prosecute), should not be so trivially used in violation of the principle of equality before law.

We do not know whether this is done due to political pressure or on your own initiative. Whatever, be the reason there is no excuse for threatening the rule of law in this manner.

Besides, you are depriving a citizen a right to a remedy.That is the worst that can be done to a victim of crime. Sri Lankan Government is duty bound to provide all citizens remedy for the crimes they suffer. This also an international obligation under Article 2 of Civil and Political Rights Covenant, ICCPR.

In recent times former AG’s have abused their powers and there is on going public criticism on that score. Your action will further bring bad image to the institution you are heading.

We urge you to review your illegal and wrong decision inthis case. And withdraw your takeover of this prosecution with the view to withdraw it and thus help an accused who ischarged in a court of law. By withdrawing this decision yourwill assist in rebuilding much damaged national stability and also respect the rights of a citizen to pursue justice, which is been so badly sabotaged.”

Ref.

http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-OLT-001-2012

http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-008-2012

දහ අට වසරක් පුරා කැත ක=ණු ඇද්ද, දreවන්ට දෙවෙනි මවක් වූ, කළ වැඩට වැටුප් නොදී - පන්නා දැමීමේ කථාව -

මේ සිද්ධිය බෙ!ද්ධ පුරවරයේ පවතින උසස් ලෙසට සම්මත බෙ!ද්ධ බාලිකාවක් වන ශ්‍රී සුමංගල බාලිකා විද්‍යාලයෙන් -

මල්කාන්ති හා රානි යන දෙපල වසර දහ අටක් පුරා විද්‍යාලයේ දරැවන්ගේ කැත ක=Kq සුද්ද කරන ලද, වැසිකිළි සුද්ද කරන ලද, අත=පත= ගාන ලද්දන්ය.

කිසිදු පූර්ව දැනුම් දීමකින් තොරව, වැඩ කළ දින වලට පවා වැටුප් නොගෙවා, සිය`ඵ නීති, සාර ධර්ම වලට පටහැනිව සේවයෙන් පලවා හැර ඇත.

සවන් දෙන්න ජාතික පාසල් අධ්‍යක්ෂ ඇත=ලු නිළධාරීන්ට ලියන ලද ලිපිය මෙසේය..

.....................................................................................

ලිඛිත පැමිණිල්ල

01. සභාපති

මානව හිමිකම් කොමිෂන් සභාව

165, කිංසි පාර,

කොළඹ 08.

02. සහකාර කම්කරු කොමසාරිස්

කම්කරු කාර්යාලය

පානදුර.

03. අධ්‍යක්ෂ

ජාතික පාසැල්

අධ්‍යාපන අමාත්‍යාංශය

ඉසුරුපාය,

බත්තරමුල්ල.

අසාධාරණ හා අයුක්ති සහගත ලෙසට සෙවය අහෝසි කිරීම.

මණ්ඩඩිගේ මල්කාන්ති ප‍්‍රනාන්දු වයස අවු: 53 යි, විවාහක, දරුවන් 01 යි

ලිපිනය: 122 ත්‍, ජයන්ති මාවත, පමුණුගම, අළුබෝමුල්ල. 2012. 01. 17 දින දීය.

1. මා 1993 පෙබරවාරි මස පානදුර ශ‍්‍රී සුමංගල බාලිකා විදුහලේ සිරිවර්ධන නමැති විදුහල්පතිනිය යටතේ කම්කරු සේවයට බැඳුනි.

2. එසේ සේවයට බැඳී වසර කීපයක් ගතවූ පසු, එන්. බඞ්. නේපාල නමැති විදුහල්පතිනිය පාසැලට පත්වී පැමිණියා.

3. එම විදුහල්පතිනිය යටතේ ද මා ඇතුළු තිදෙනෙකු මිදුල අතුගෑම, පංති කාමර අතුගෑම, කුණු අස් කිරීම, වතුර මෝටර් පණගැන්වීම, දරුවන් අපවිත‍්‍රවූ විට පිරිසිදු කිරීම, වැසිකිලි පවිත‍්‍ර කිරිම හා දරුවන් අසනීප වූවිට නිවෙස් වලට ගෙනයාමද සිදුකිරිම සහ විදුහල්පතිනිය විසින් පවරනු ලබන අමතර රාජකාරීන්ද සිදු කරනු ලැබුවා.

4. එ් ආකාරයෙන් 2012. 01. 15 වන දින දක්වාම නොකඩවා සේවය කළ අතර, අපට වැටුප් ලැබුණේ මාසිකවයි.

5. 2012. 01. 16 වන දින මාත් රාණි හා දයා නමැති අය පාසැලට යන විට අප වෙනදා කරන වැඩ වෙනත් අය කරමින් සිටියා.

6. පසුව අප විමලා නමැති ගුරු මහත්මිය හමුවී අප කරන වැඩ වෙනත් අය කරනවා, අපි මොකද කරන්නේ කියා අසා සිටියා. එවිට එම ගරුවරිය පවසා සිටියේ, රජයේ සේවකයින් දාලා, අනියම් සේවකයින් තියාගන්න බෑ, උවමනා වුණොත් සුමාන 2කින් දැනුම් දෙනවා කියා විදුහල්පතිනිය පවසන බවයි. නමුත් විදුහල්පතිනිය විසින් අප වෙත එ් සම්බන්ධයෙන් කිසිදු දැනුම්දීමක් කළේ නැත.

7. එදිනම එනම්, 2012. 01. 16 දින පාසැලට පැමිණ සිටි දෙමාපියන් පිරිසක් හා ගුරුවරුන් පිරිසක් විදුහල්පතිනිය හමුවී, අපව පාසැලට අවශ්‍ය බව දන්වා තිබෙනවා. එවිට විදුහල්පතිනිය දන්වා ඇත්තේ අනියම් සේවකයින් තබා නොගන්නා ලෙස චක‍්‍රලේඛනයක් එවා ඇති බවයි.

8. මේ මාසයේ ද දින 15 ක් සේවය කළද, එ් සඳහා ද කිසිදු ගෙවීමක් නොකරන ලදි.

මා ඉල්ලා සිටින්නේ,

1. වසර ගණනාවක් සිදුකළ මාගේ සේවය නැවත ලබාදෙන ලෙසට,

2. කිසිදු දැනුම්දීමක් නොකොට මා සේවයෙන් ඉවත් කිරීමේදී මට සිදු කළ අසාධාරණයට සරිලන වන්දි මුදලක් ලබාදීමට කටයුතු කරන ලෙසට,

3. සියලූ නීතිවිරෝධී සාරධර්ම වලට පටහැනිව කටයුතු කරන පානදුර ශ‍්‍රී සුමංගල බාලිකා විදුහලේ විදුහල්පතිනිය වන එන්. ඩබ්. නේපාල නමැති අයට විරුද්ධව නීතිමය හා විනයානුකූල පියවර ගෙන, නීතියට ඉහළින් කිසිවෙකුට සිටිය නොහැකි බවට අනාගත පරම්පරාවට ආදර්ශයක් ලබාදීමට කටයුතු කරන ලෙසටය.

පිටපත් : ලේකම්

අධ්‍යාපන අමාත්‍යාංශය

ඉසුරුපාය,

බත්තරමුල්ල.

දැ. ගැ. පි. : කලාප අධ්‍යාපන අධ්‍යක්ෂ

කලාප අධ්‍යාපන දෙපාර්තමේන්තුව

කළුතර.

The Asian Human Rights Commission, with the collaboration of Janasansadaya, donated a Computer to assist Date-base development Programme of Judicial Medical Officers.

The necessity of a Common Data-base for all JMOs’ was felt and this idea was initiated by Consultant JMO, Dr. Ajith Jayasena attached to the District General Hospital, Matale, during a workshop held under the theme of ‘Medico-Legal Management of Torture Survivors’ in which ten Consultant JMOs participated.

Most significant feature was that the Data-base is designed and created by a Medical Officer (Medico-legal), Dr. M.H.M.A. Izzath, of Dambulla Base Hospital.

As mentioned earlier, Dr. Ajith Jayasena did all the initiatives and to put this idea into a reality, they needed a Computer which was accepted by the Asian Human Rights Commission who came forward to donate a Computer worth of LKR One Hindered Thousand.

This Computer was handed over to the JMOs office, District General Hospital Matale by Janasansadaya on January 12, 2012 in an occasion where Medical Superintendent of District General Hospital, Matale, Dr. Arjuna Thilakaratne participated and highly appreciated the idea of creating a Data-base and the donation of a Computer to bring this idea into real practice.

Dr. M.H.M.A. Izzath presented a demonstration to explain as to how this Data-base would effectively be used to ease the task of JMOs’. He also volunteered to train all JMOs in the Island to use this Data-base efficiently.In this occasion all staff members of the JMOs’ office in the Matale District General Hospitals participated, and the Secretary of Janasansadya, Mr. Chitral Perera officially handed over the Computer to the Office of the JMO s.

The Asian Human Rights Commission condemns the use of the Attorney General's Department for the sabotage of justice.

The Asian Human Rights Commission has learned of the decision of the Hon. Attorney-General to take over the prosecution of a Private Plaint filed in the Magistrate's Court of Panadura, without the consent of the Complainant of the said case, upon an application and representations made by and on behalf of the Accused who is a Superintendent of Police. The case bears No. 92368 (Private Plaint)

The decision of the Attorney General was communicated to Court by the Senior State Counsel who appeared in Court on December 15, 2011, in the case referred to. When the Complainant of objected to the Attorney General's decision the Court directed all the parties (the Accused, the Complainant and the Attorney General) to file written submissions on this issue.

The case was filed by and on behalf of M. Nishantha Fernando Jayawardena under and in terms of Section 136(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No.15 of 1979 (commonly referred to as private plaint) against Lesly Hamilton Gregory Cooray who was the Superintendent of Police for Panadura area, at the time that the alleged incident took place.

There were three charges leveled against him SP COORAY in the said case:

(1) that on or about 04.06.2010 inside the Police Station of Panadura the said SP Cooray did voluntary cause hurt to the said Nishantha and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 314 of the Penal Code (PC)

(2) On the same time place and during the course of the same transaction the said accused did threaten the said Nishantha of causing injury with an intent to cause fear and thereby committed Criminal intimidation an offence punishable under Section 486 of the PC.

(3) On the same time, place and during the course of the same transaction that the said accused did use Criminal Force to the said Nishantha otherwise than grave and sudden provocation given by said Nishantha and thereby committed and offence punishable under Section 343 of the PC.

02. The Background Situation/Facts which gave rise to this case are as follows:

(i) On 03.06.2010, the Panadura Police had left a massage (over the phone) with the Father-in-Law of the said Nishantha informing Nishantha to be present in the office of the Officer-In-Charge of the Special Crime Investigation Bureau of the Police Station Panadura, at 9.00am on the following day-04.06.2010 for an inquiry against Nishantha, upon a Complainant made by Shiromi Devika Peiris regarding a financial transactions.

The said message was conveyed to Nishantha on the same day itself.

(ii) On the 4th June 2010, the said Nishantha went to the Police Station of Panadura with his wife and met the O.I.C. of the Special Crimes Investigations Bureau (SCIB) of the Panadura Police Station. When Nishantha entered in to the office room of the O.I.C.-SCIB Panadura Police Station, he saw the said Devika was also present in the said office room.

When the O.I.C. – SCIB was about to commence the inquiry, another Police Officer came in to the room and informed that the "SP–1" wanted the said O.I.C. to see him at his office. Accordingly the O.I.C.–SCIB went out of his room and few minutes later came back and informed that the said inquiry would be held by the SP–1 at his office. The said O.I.C.– SCIB took both parties to the said SP–1 and left the said office room.

(The said Nishantha heard the word "SP-1" as "ASP-1")

(iii) Thereafter the said SP–1 has shown a document to Nishantha and quarried whether he admits the signature contained in the said document. The said Nishantha explained as to why he placed his signature in the document shown and upon the reasons given by Nishantha the said SP blagarded him in filth and preceded to assault him.

The SP–1 tied/held Nishantha from his shirt collar and the neck and hit him to his chest area and to his face.

When Nishantha's wife cried not to assault Nishantha the said SP pushed her out from her shoulder.

Thereafter said SP-1 called a Policeman and ordered Nishantha be arrested and locked up.

03. Accordingly, a Police Officer put Nishantha in to the Police cell and later a statement was recorded from him.

While the statement being recorded from Nishantha he informed of the said assault by the said SP–1. The Officer who recorded the statement from Nishantha refused to record the said information with the fact that the SP-1 had assaulted Nishantha, but he issued a Medico Legal Examination Form (MLEF) to Nishantha and took him to the Panadura Base Hospital.

Nishantha informed of the said assault to the doctor who examined him at Panadura Base Hospital.

According to the Medico Legal Report the injuries sustained by Nishantha are compatible with the history given by him.

The Medico Legal Report (MLR) issued from Panadura Hospital is annexed hereto marked as "A".

04. Thereafter the Police produced Nishantha before the Learned Magistrate of Panadura with a Report in case bearing No.91879, accusing him for obtaining money worth of Rs.25 lacks from the said Devika and thereby committed the offences of Criminal misappropriation (Sec.386 PC), Criminal Breach of Trust

(Sec.389 PC) and cheating (Sec.400 of PC) and moved that Nishantha be remanded.

(Nishantha was subsequently discharge from the this case)

When Nishantha was produced in Court he informed that he was assaulted by said SP-1 Cooray and the Learned Magistrate promptly recorded the said (verbal) complaint of Nishantha in open Court.

As Nishantha had heard the word SP-1 as ASP-1, (as mentioned earlier) he referred the Police Officer who assaulted him as "ASP-1".

The Court granted bail to the said Nishantha and further referred him to the Consultant Judicial Medical Officer of the Kalubowila Teaching Hospital and called for a MLR.

There again the opinion was that the injuries sustained by Nishantha are compatible with the history given by him.

A copy of the MLR issued by the Kalubowila Hospital is annexed hereto marked as "B"

05. After receiving the MLR from Kalubowila Hospital, the Learned Magistrate called for the evidence on behalf of the complainant (Nishantha) in order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to identify the accused and to proceed against him under the provisions of section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act. (CCrPA)

(i) M. Nishantha Fernando Jayawardena and his wife M.Surangi Niroshini Salgado gave evidence and the Learned Magistrate after being satisfied himself of the evidence led on behalf of the complainant, decided to proceed the case against said SP-1.

(ii) Thereafter the Learned Magistrate referred the matter to the Mediation Board as required by law and subsequently the case was referred back to Court as the complainant Nishantha did not agreed to settle the matter in the mediation Board.

(iii) Upon the complainant filing a (draft) Charge Sheet and a List of Witnesses for the prosecution the Court issued summons on the said Lesley Hamilton Gregory Cooray (SP-1) to appear in Court.

A copy of the said section 139 of CCrPA is annexed hereto marked as "C"

06. On a later date, with 18.07.2011 the said SP-1 Cooray appeared in Court and moved on his behalf that the case be taken up in-camera (inside the Chambers of the Judge) as he was the Superintendent of Police for the Panadura area. With the consent of the complainant the case was taken up in camera but on a later date upon an objection raised by the Counsel for the complainant the Learned Magistrate decided to take the case up in open Court.

(i) On 18.07.2011, upon the accused (SP-1 Cooray) pleading not guilty to the charges leveled against him the case was fixed for trial and on the first date of the trial with 29.08.2011, a postponement of the trial was sought on behalf of the accused and accordingly the case was re-fixed for trial on 10.10.2011.

(ii) On the 2nd date of the trial, wit 10.10.2011 the accused moved for a postponement of the trial in this case again, on the ground that he had already made an application and representations to the Attorney General to take over the prosecution of this case without the consent of the complainant, acting under section 191(2) of the CCrPA.

Counsel for the Complainant objected to the said Application of the accused, but the Court re-fixed the matter for trial on 15.12.2011 and made it the final date for the accused.

07. On 15.12.2011 a Senior State Counsel appeared on behalf of the Attorney General informed Court that the Attorney General had decided to take over the prosecution of this case, acting under and in terms of section 191 (2) of the CCrPA.

A copy of the said section 191(2) of the CCrPA is annexed hereto marked as "D1" & the Section referred therein wit Section 136 of the CCrPA is annexed hereto marked as "D2".

The Counsel for the complainant of this case objected to the appearance of the said Senior State Counsel and taking over the prosecution of this case on three grounds:

(a) that if the Learned Magistrate permits the Attorney General to take over the prosecution, the illegal act of assault committed by the said SP Cooray would be interpreted as a matter connected with or related to the discharge of the official duties of the said SP Cooray.

(b) that, after taking over the prosecution the Attorney General could arrive at the decision of nolle proseque in respect of this case.

(c) that if this decision of the Attorney General is implemented it would open "flood gates" for any police officer to freely use force, assault and even to torture not only a person who attends to a Police Station for an inquiry but also to a person taken in to custody by Police.

According to the oral submissions made by the Senior State Counsel and the Counsel for the accused, as the alleged act of the said SP-1 Cooray was committed while he was conducting an inquiry, in uniform and inside his office it should be considered as a matter connected with or related to the discharge of his official duties.

(Considering the facts of this case the above argument is untenable in law as well as on facts)

08. As the Counsel appearing for the complainant my considered view is that,

(i) we should proceed with our objections (by filing written submissions) in order to get an order of Court disallowing the Application made by the Attorney General before the Learned Magistrate.

(ii) apart from that, the said decision of the Attorney General ought to be challenged and quashed by invoking either the writ jurisdiction or the fundamental rights jurisdiction or by both in an appropriate forum.

The Asian Human Rights Commission condemns the use of the Attorney General's Department for the sabotage of justice. In recent times the Attorney General's Department has been used to help criminals by withdrawing criminal charges against some of them and even withdrawing charges after indictments have been filed in the High Courts. This has come under public criticism. However, the AG's ignores such public criticism when acting to help corrupt politicians or powerful police officers who are charges with serious offenses. Besides this the Attorney General's Department has now acquired a reputation for filing fabricated charges under the direction of the executive and the ruling party.

January 12, 2012

Newer Posts Older Posts Home

Dailyvideo

Recent Entries

Recent Comments

Photo Gallery