IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of a Rule in terms of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act, No. 2 of 1978, against Roshan Davinda Ranaweera, Attorney-at-Law.

Hon. A. K. M. Patabendige, High Court Judge, High Court No. 4, Colombo.

SC Rule No. 08/2023 COMPLAINANT Vs.

Roshan Davinda Ranaweera Attorney-at-Law, st

231/1, 1 Lane, Athurugiriya Road, Homagama.

RESPONDENT BEFORE: S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J. &

ARJUNA OBEYESEKERE, J COUNSEL: Saliya Pieris, PC with Suren Gnanaraj and Pasindu Tilakaratne for the Respondent Attorney-at-Law Dr. Sunil Coorey for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.

Udara Karunatilaka, SSC for the Hon. Attorney-General st INQUIRY ON: 21 October 2024 th DECIDED ON: 30 October 2024 THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

1. The instant Rule was preferred by the Registrar of this Court pursuant to complaints th against Roshan Davinda Ranaweera, the Respondent Attorney-at-Law, dated 12 January th

2022 and 20 December 2022, alleging failures on the part of the Respondent to appear before the High Court in a criminal matter where he was appointed as the assigned Counsel. The said complaints were made to His Lordship the Chief Justice by then Judge of High Court No. 4, Hon. A. K. M. Patabendige.

2. The Rule against the Respondent Attorney-at-Law dated 12 th January 2024 discloses the allegations against him as follows:

“WHEREAS written complaints dated 12 January 2022 and 20 December 2022 have been made to His Lordship the Chief Justice by the Hon. A. K. M. Patabendige, Judge of High Court No. 4 of Colombo (hereinafter referred to as the said Complainant), alleging the failure by you to be present in Court in a matter in which you have been appointed as the assigned Counsel by the High Court;

AND WHEREAS the said complaint and documents furnished by the said Complainant discloses, inter alia, that;

a. You were appointed by the High Court as counsel for the 2 nd accused in Colombo High Court case No. 2008/2004 on 26.10.2016 b. That the said case was fixed for trial on 01.12.2021, however you failed to be present in court on the said date and the matter was rescheduled for 08.12.2021, c. You were present in Court on 08.12.2021 and upon the evidence of the Court translator being concluded the Prosecution closed their case and the matter was fixed for the Defence to commence their case 11.1.2022.

d. On 11.1.2022 you once again failed to be present and it was informed by the 2 nd Accused that you were appearing before the Court in Homogama [sic].

e. The case was fixed for further trial on 14.12.2022 and once again on the said date too you failed to be present before Court.

f. The 2 nd Accused was instructed to inform you to be present in Court on

15.12.2022, however that you failed to be present in Court on the said date as well.

g. You were informed by letter dated 09 January 2023 sent by the Registrar of Supreme Court on the direction of his Lordship the Chief Justice to submit observations by way of an Affidavit in respect of the aforesaid complaint, however, you failed to respond to the same.

AND WHEREAS, the aforesaid complaint made by Hon. A. K. M. Patabendige, Judge of the High Court No. 4 discloses that;

(a) by reason of the aforesaid conduct you have failed to exercise due diligence in respect of a professional matter and therefore acted in a manner which is contrary to Rule 10 of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette of Attorneys-at-Law) Rules 1988 made under Article 136 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (b) by reasons of the aforesaid conduct you have acted in a manner which is contrary to Rules 15 and 16 of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette of Attorneys- at-Law) Rules 1988 made under Article 136 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (c) by reasons of the aforesaid conduct you have acted in a manner which is contrary to Rule 18(a) of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette of Attorneys-at- Law) R