WICKRAMASINGHE VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER

WICKRAMASINGHE VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND ANOTHER

COURT OF APPEAL
SISIRA DE ABREW. J.
ABEYRATNE. J.
LECAM VASAM. J.
CA (PHC) 39/2009
HC NEGOMBO HCAB 490/2006
DECEMBER 8,2009
JANUARY 22, 2010

Bail Act 30 of 1997 - Section 2, Section 3 (1), Section 14, Section 16, Section 17 - Could a suspect be kept on remand for a penod exceeding 24 months? - Should Section 16 - Section 17 of the Bail Act be read subject to Section 14 ? - What is the purpose of remanding a suspect/accused? - What is the maximum period that a suspect to whom the Bail Act applies can be kept on remand? - Interpretation of Statutes - Prevention of Terrorism (Sp. Prov.) Act 48 of 1979.

The accused was arrested on 28.9.2006 in connection with the offence of murder. The High Court on 30.3.2009 refused bail. The accused had been on remand for 3 years and 5 months. The accused sought to revise the said order.

Held:

(1) Grant of bail shall be regarded as the rule the refusal to grant bail is the exception.

Per Sisira de Abrew. J.

"The purpose of remanding a suspect/accused is to ensure his appearance in Court on each and every day that the case is called in Court; if the Court feels that, he would appear in Court after his release on bail Court should enlarge him on bail. Court should not remand a suspect/accused in order to punish him".

(2) Section 14, Section 16, Section 17 of the Bail Act do not state that "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the provisions of the Act - but Section 16 states 'subject to the provisions of Section 17, and it does not state subject to the provisions of Section 14 - therefore Section 16 and Section 17 are not subject to Section 14.

(3) When one considers Section 3 and Section 16 it is clear that the suspect/accused to whom the Bail Act does not apply can be kept on remand for a period exceeding two years but not the suspects to whom the Bail Act applies.

Per Sisira de Abrew. J.

"The maximum period that a suspect to whom the Bail Act Applies can be kept on remand is 2 years, the period of 2 years is considered only if the Attorney General acts under Section 17. If there is no application under Section 17 the maximum period that a suspect/accused to whom the Bail Act applies can be kept on remand is 1 year".

Held further

(4) The mere fact that the results of applying a statute may be unjust or absurd does not entitle this Court to refuse to put it into operation, it is however common practice that if there are two different interpretations, so far as the grammar is concerned of the words in the Act the Courts adopt that which is just reasonable and sensible rather than one which is or appears to them to be none of those things.

(5) The role of the Judge is to give effect to the expressed intention of Parliament, as it is the bounden duty of any Court and the function of every Judge to do justice within the stipulated parameters.

APPLICATION in Revision from an order of the High Court, Negombo refusing bail.

Case referred to:

1 . Jayawathie vs. Attomey General- CA 189/2004 CAM 27/4/2006 (Overruled)
2. Holmen vs. Bradfiled Rural District Council - 1949 2 KB 1 at 7
3. Sebestian Fernando vs. Katana WPCS - 1900 - 1 Sri LR 342 (SC)
4. Attorney General vs. Sumathipala - 2006 2 Sri LR 126
Senerath Jayasundera for petitioner.
Vijith Malalgoda SSC for respondent.

March 04th 2010
SISIRA DE ABREW, J.

    The accused in this case was arrested on 28.09.2006 in conection with an offence of murder. Learned High Court Judge has, by his order dated 30.03.2009, refused to grant bail. The accused has been on remand for over a period of three years and five months. The Petitioner has filed this petition to revise the said order of the learned High Court Judge. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in view of sections 16 and 17 of the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997 (Bail Act) the accused cannot be kept on remand for a period exceeding 24 months.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document