What has been done through the Bail Act Amendment is by no means a reflection on the magistrates that consider questions of bail and lawyers who appear in such matters. In both spheres we have in large measure persons of high probity. There are however also a few who have done no good to their profession or calling. There have been occasions when Magistrates in Colombo have given bail to suspects in non-bailable offences despite the fact that the inquiry proper has already commenced elsewhere. I recall the instance when lawyers stood witness to a fabricated instance of the abduction of a key suspect in a case of "contract killing" solely to put the police off the scent of the man's escape across the Palk Strait. These however are the very few black sheep who like the bird in the adage do not make a summer, or as in this case, the winter of discontent.

In this Amendment one of my pressing concerns was the easing of the law's delay. In the Magistrate's Court the major block as I saw it was the long drawn endless proceedings in non-summary inquiries. I came across the instance of such inquiry in Ratnapura going on for 200 days. When the inquiry finally ended and the proceedings were being prepared to be sent up after commitment to the High Court the Record Room of the Court was burnt down. I as Minister looked into the matter and had the distinct impression that it was arson committed to destroy the record in the non-summary proceedings. There is no reason as to why non-summaries should lengthen out in this way if judge and lawyers did the job as the law provides. I made it part of my agenda to shorten the non-summary proceedings by limiting it to the proof of statements to the police made by witnesses. This was no arbitrary decision of mine. The Attorney-General's Department had already a well considered draft for this purpose and this was accepted by me for amending the relevant provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code. This and the Bail Amendment are twin Acts which if read together will demonstrate to ''Mudliyar" that the suspects in Court in respect of the relevant offences go before the High Court in what we refer to as double quick time. If suspects have not already been enlarged on bail the High Court has sufficient material before it to decide on the question of bail pending trial.

I do not recall that the Colombo Magistrate's Court Lawyers' Association sought to see me on either of these Bills. Nor does "Mudliyar" make that claim. But the Bar Council did request an appointment. At my meeting with its delegation led by Mr. Ananda Wijesekera, PC., I had the opportunity to discuss these Bills at length. I regretted I was unable to accommodate them on the Bail Amendment. I had to balance the interests of the Bar with those of society at large. But on the Non-summary Proceedings Bill I did give consideration to the suggestions of the delegation. Any disappointment of "Mudliyar" with the Bail Amendment, whether justified or not, should be blamed on me and not on either the Bar Council or Mr. Ananda Wijesekere.

I note that the Bail Amendment Bill has been reintroduced in Parliament by the present Minister. I hope the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill (which deals with non-summary proceedings mentioned above) will follow. I take this opportunity to make it known that I had requested the Legal Unit of the Ministry of Justice to work on amending the Judicature Act so as to enable a judge to adopt the proceedings taken in a case by his predecessor in office and proceed from that point on unless there is good reason not to do so. As the law stands adoption of proceedings is done only with the consent of parties. In most cases there is invariably one of the parties that turns obstructive and refuses to consent to adoption even where there is no valid reason to do so.

This change in the law would apply to both criminal and civil proceedings. This could apply to High Court proceedings too because there are no trials or appeals taken up in these Courts (except where the accused opts for trial by jury) on a day to day basis. I may also mention that I had accepted the suggestion by senior lawyers on the civil side that I reintroduce the pre-trial inquiry of the Administration of Justice Law as part of the Civil Procedure Code. These are measures which would considerably reduce the law's delays and I take the liberty to commend them to the Hon. Minister presently in charge of the subject of Justice. I hope "Mudliyar'' will join me in this and not restrict his considerable talent to Hulftsdorp pot-boiling.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster