NAOMI COKEMAN

VS.

HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
S. EVA WANASUNDERA P.C, J.
ANIL GOONERATNE J.
NALIN PERERA J.
SC FR APPLICATION 136/2014
26.10.2017.

British citizen - Devoted Buddhist - Display of tattoo - Mark of respect - Articles 11, 12 (1) and 13 (1) of the Constitution - Lewd, Obscene and disparaging remarks - Demand of money - Belated Statements - Section 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act - Jurisdiction of magistrate - Immigration and Emigration Act No. 20 of 1948 as Amended - Deportation order - Subject Minister.

Petitioner is a British Citizen and a Nurse at the Hawkesbury lodge, United Kingdom. Petition filed in this court describe the Petitioner as a devout practicing Buddhist and attends meditation retreats in several countries. As a personal expression of her devotion to Buddhism she displays a tattoo on her upper right arm of Lord Buddha. Petitioner arrived in Sri Lanka on 21.04.2014 and she alleges that she was arbitrary arrested, detained and complains of degrading treatment, culminating in her arbitrary, irrational, capricious and ultra vires deportation.

It is stated and argued that on arrival at the Bandaranayaka International Airport Katunayake she was permitted entry after all official clearance from customs and Immigrations. At the exit of the Air Port a taxi driver and another bystander informed the Petitioner that the tattoo she was displaying was objectionable in Sri Lanka. Therefore a member of the Civil Defence Force came to the scene and told her that the tattoo was objectionable, and Petitioner should proceed to the nearest police station.

Petition filed in the Supreme Court refer to details under the following sub heading, the manner she was treated.

a) Incidents at the Katunayake Police Station.
b) Events that took place in the Negombo Magistrate's Court.
c) Detention at the Negombo prison.
d) Detention at the Mirihana Immigration detention camp.
e) Unlawful deportation of the Petitioner.

Respondents deny all allegation against them.

HELD:

1. This court having considered submissions by either party states that it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not arrested. The fact that the Petitioner was produced before the Magistrate on a "B" Report (P2) is sufficient proof of Petitioner being arrested. The "B" Report states there was no offence allegedly committed by the Petitioner. It also reveal that police acted on information received from airport authorities and police

had been convinced that Petitioner had no intention of outraging religious feelings. By this report to court police seek an order for deportation of the Petitioner.

2. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents arrested the Petitioner and produced the Petitioner before the learned Magistrate of Negombo without a proper basis with a view of deporting the Petitioner. Arrest without a warrant can only be made in terms of Section 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act. To permit extra judicial arrest would be detrimental to the liberty of the Petitioner. We in this court cannot encourage illegality merely to help the police.

3. I accept the version of the Petitioner. On the other hand I accept the submissions of the Respondent that public officers were adhering to a judicial order. Further Judicial orders cannot be challenged in Fundamental Rights Application. But whatever that took place prior to such judicial order, ( which was an illegal order) the Petitioner having been harassed or subject to degrading treatment by some officers either police or a civil defence officer and prison guards is relevant in the context of the case. Money was extracted from the Petitioner and unacceptable language used on the Petitioner even prior to taking up the case before the Magistrate by some guards are horrifying and scandalous in the circumstances and in the context of the case in hand. How money was extracted is supported by the affida