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 Alwapillai Gangatharan, Attorney-at-Law SC/Rule/03/2021 Edward Megarry

2nd Secretary-Migration British High Commission

389, Bauddhaloka Mawatha Colombo 7 Complainant Alwapillai Gangatharan No.361, Dam Streem, Colombo -12.

Respondent Before: Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC J S. Thurairaja PC J E.A.G. R Amarasekara J Counsel: Anura Gunaratne for the Respondent.

Rohan Sahabandu PC with Chathurika Elvitigala Ms. Sachini Senanayake and Ms. Nathasha Fernando for the BASL.

M. Gopallawa, SDSG for the Attorney General Inquiry on: 02.06.22 and 26.01.2023 Decided on: 23 03. 2023 ALUWIHARE PC, J A Rule was issued against the Respondent Attorney-at-Law, Alwapillai Gangatharan, (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) for the breach of Rule Nos. 60 and 61 of the Supreme Court [Conduct and Etiquette of Attorneys-at-Law] Rules of 1998, alleging that the Respondent, by the said breach, had committed deceit or malpractice in terms of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act, No. 02 of 1978.

The Rule was read out and a copy of the same was handed over to the Respondent on 23.05.2022, however no plea was recorded on that day and the matter was fixed for the 02-06-2022. On the said date the Rule being read over for the second time, the Respondent, at the first given opportunity, pleaded guilty to the same.

When the matter was taken up for further inquiry on 05-07-2022, the learned counsel for the Respondent made submissions in mitigation on his behalf.

Before considering the matters pleaded in mitigation, we wish to place the facts germane to the Rule.

A written complaint dated 12th February 2016 was made to the President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka by Edward Megarry, Second Secretary (Migration) of the British High Commission in Sri Lanka (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) alleging deceit and malpractice on the part of the Respondent for furnishing a letter dated 5^th June 2015 falsely affirming the existence of a case bearing No.28223/5/2008 in the Magistrate’s Court of Colombo, along with documents purporting to be Summons to be served and a warrant of arrest issued by the Kotahena Police station against one Machado, in order to mount support for a claim for asylum in the United Kingdom for the said person. Upon receipt of this complaint, the Administrative Secretary of the Bar Association, directed by the Chairman of the Disciplinary Inquiry panel “11” of the Bar Association, by way of letter dated 26^th November 2016, required the Respondent to forward his observations regarding the complaint, by way of an Affidavit. The Bar Association also informed the Respondent that the inquiry into the matter would be held in camera., requesting his presence along with witnesses (if any). On 6^th December 2016, the Respondent filed an Affidavit declaring inter alia, that he had not sent the fictitious documents so alleged and that he had no knowledge of the ‘Kotahena Police Matter’.

Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Report of the Special Panel of Inquiry of the Bar Association on the matter was communicated to the Registrar of this Court by letter dated 26^th September 2018 by the Bar Association. The report detailed the following:

a. That the Respondent had admitted to issuing the letter dated 5th June 2015 regarding one Mr. Machado, who was unknown to him, affirming that Mr. Machado was held at the Kotahena Police Station on suspicion of being involved in the murder of Mr. Lakshman Kadirgamar, that the suspect was produced in court and subsequently provided bail, that the matter was then still under investigation, that there was a warrant of arrest issued on 17^th October 2008 against the suspect in Case No.28223/5/2008 in the Chief Magistrate’s Court of Colombo.

b. That although the Respondent did not know the suspect, he had known the suspect’s uncle, one Joe Fernando, both as a client and as a