| Front
Page
|
||||||
|
Athas case:
Order on bail plea on August 1 When the case came up before Colombo High Court Judge Sarath Ambepitiya for argument, Srinath Perera and Ranjit Abeysuriya, Counsel for appellants Rukman Herath and Sujeewa Kannangara, urged court that the judge had the discretion to grant bail even under exceptional circumstances and that he should not feel in any way that his hands were tied. Countering argument that his client would abscond court upon being granted bail, Mr. Abeysuriya pointed out that Mr. Kannangara had never been absent on any of the 30 trial dates on which the case was taken up, 17 of which were before presiding judge Ambepitiya. Mr. Abeysuriya claimed there was no evidence to establish that his client, who came from a family with legal background, would not appear in court after bail was granted. The fact that his client was never identified by the 1st petitioner, Mr. Athas, but by his wife, should also be taken into consideration along with the possibility his case could succeed in the Court of Appeal. Mr. Abeysuriya also contended that considering the fact that the appeal would take at least two years for completion, his client should be granted bail. Another factor Mr. Abeysuriya submitted in support of the application was the illness of his client's daughter. Presenting two reports, one by a paediatrician and the other by a psychiatrist, Mr. Abeysuriya said the child should not be allowed to suffer as a consequence. Mr. Abeysuriya said the paediatrician's report indicated that subsequent to the conviction, the child had been psychologically disturbed. At this point Judge Ambepitiya asked what would have been the position, had the bail application been on behalf of a person convicted of murder. With regard to the objections raised by the Attorney General on the possible threat to the witnesses in view of an incident prior to the day the judgment was given when a number of Army officers were present in court, Mr. Abeysuriya said he had no power over the persons who came to court. At this point the judge observed that even on this occasion he could see some unwanted persons in court. Counsel Srinath Perera supporting the bail application for the 2nd accused argued that bail should be allowed as the alleged threats levelled at the petitioner and his family had not been given effect to. He further argued that even during the identification parade, the Gangodawila Magistrate had granted his client bail. He stated these so-called threats did not give any advantage to the defendants but to the petitioners and alleged that the threats could have originated from the complainant or their wellwishers. As for the Army officers' presence in court, Mr. Perera too said he had no control over persons who came to court. At this point the judge said that when he mentioned about unwanted persons in court he had observed a person quickly walking out of the court and wanted to know whether it was a coincidence. Mr. Perera went on to state that his client had an unblemished service record in the Air Force and that his wife also worked in a bank, thus the likelihood of absconding by the defendant was rare. Further, bail should be granted since the sentence begins subsequent to the appeal which would take at least two years for completion, he said. Senior State Counsel P. P. Surasena told court that sympathy had no place in courts and should not be taken into account in the granting of bail. Also the reputation of a person was no ground for bail. He said the threats levelled at the petitioner should be considered as there was a possibility of persons taking revenge. He also added that the granting of bail to the defendants could cause a threat to the community at large. Countering a point raised by Mr. Abeysuriya that his client had not been identified by the petitioner, Mr. Surasena said that evidence of a sole witness, in this instance that of the wife of the petitioner, was adequate in that regard and cited a number of cases in support of this. Mr. Surasena also drew attention to a discrepancy in the reports arguing that the paediatrician's report included more details of the psychological aspect of the child than that of the psychiatrist's report. As for the long period the case would take in appeal, Mr. Surasena submitted that like a long absence from home did not make a person in battle eligible to leave the battlefront, similarly bail could not be granted merely on a time duration. He said that to consider this an exceptional case which demanded exceptional concessions would only invite more persons in similar situations urging court to do the same. Squadron Leader Herath and Squadron Leader Kannangara were found guilty on two counts namely for committing the offence of entering the Athas residence on February 12, 1998 and intimidating Mr. Athas by threatening to cause grievous hurt by using a firearm. Both were sentenced to seven years RI each on the first count and two years RI each on the second count. They were also ordered to pay a fine a of Rs. 10,000 and in the event of default serve one year's RI. Senior State Counsel P.P. Surasena with State Counsel Amendra Seneviratne appeared for the Attorney General. Srinath Perera PC with Christopher de Alwis and Senerat Jayatunga appeared for Rukman Herath. Ranjit Abeysuriya PC with Duncan de Silva appeared for Sujeewa Kannangara. Daya Perera PC with T.G. Gunesekera appeared for Mr. Athas and Anoma Athas. |
||||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
