A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Brigadier Priyanka Fernando Will Face A Retrial: ICPPG
The Chief Magistrate of England and Wales, Emma Arbuthnot, ruled that Brigadier Priyanka Fernando,
a former Sri Lankan Defence Attaché, will face a retrial on 7th May
2019 for making slit throat gestures to the protestors outside the High
Commission in London. It is unknown if he will attend Westminster
Magistrates Court on 7 May 2019 or what his defence will be.
The incident which forms the basis of the charges against Brigadier
Fernando occurred on 4th February 2018 when Brigadier Fernando was
filmed, whilst on duty in his military uniform, making repeated cut
throat gestures to the protestors. The protesters were very frightened
by these threats and brought a private prosecution against Brigadier
Fernando. The private prosecutors supported by the International Centre
for Prevention and Prosecution of Genocide (ICPPG) to bring the private
prosecutors with the assistance of the Public Interest law Centre
(PILC).
On 21st January 2019, Brigadier Fernando was convicted (in his absence)
of threatening the protestors and a warrant for his arrest was issued.
The warrant was subsequently withdrawn following an issue raised as to
whether Brigadier Fernando was immune from prosecution for the offences
due to diplomatic immunity. Accordingly, this was listed for further
hearing to consider the issue of immunity.
On 1st February 2019, at Westminster Magistrates Court before the Chief
Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot, Counsel for Brigadier Fernando argued that
the Brigadier’s actions were covered by indefinite immunity as they were
within his official duties to monitor any anti-Sri Lankan activities or
LTTE activities and report them to the Sri Lankan High Commission and
to prepare appropriate strategies to safeguard the High Commission. In
support, the Defence relied on a “Job Description Document” issued by
the Sri Lankan High Commission to Brigadier Fernando which provides that
the Brigadier was officially authorised by the Sri Lankan Government to
“Monitor any anti-Sri Lankan activities in the UK and report to the
High Commissioner and through her to the Intelligent Agencies in Sri
Lanka”.
However, the defence argument was rejected by the Chief Magistrate at a
hearing on 1st March 2019 who found that: “It was not part of Brigadier
Fernando’s job description to make the alleged cut-throat gestures on
the three occasions, it could not be any part of the mission’s function
and therefore the Minister Counsellor’s behaviour is not given immunity
by Article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention. The Brigadier cannot call on
the residual immunity that he would have been able to had the acts been
performed in the exercise of this functions.” The Chief Magistrate also
noted that the job description required Mr Fernando to “…strictly
adhere” to “…personal behaviour and professional standards.”
Counsel for the Defence then made an application under section 142 of
the Magistrates’ Court Act to have the conviction set aside. The case
was adjourned to 15th March 2019 to deal with that application.
At the hearing today, 15th March 2019, the Defence argued that there had
been procedural mistakes in this case which meant that the conviction
was invalid. The Chief Magistrate agreed, quashed the conviction and
ordered a retrial. The retrial will be held on 7th May 2019 at
Westminster Magistrates Court.
In addition, it was concerning that some individuals close to the Sri
Lankan High Commission were present at the hearing today and involved in
filming the prosecutors, witnesses and protesters which was of concern.
One of them, was caught by a Security Officer of the Court taking
photographs of protestors through the window from inside the Court
building. This was immediately brought to the attention of the Chief
Magistrate and she warned all those present that it was illegal to take
photographs or film anyone inside the Court building or to
film/photograph people who may be witnesses outside the Court building.