AG files appeal over HC acquittal of suspects in 200 kg heroin case 

• Says HC at bar judgement was given without a fair trial 
• Claims Trial-at-Bar President made a predetermined conclusion on the case at the time of granting bail to a suspect, prior to the appointment of the bench 
• Maintains evidence has not been considered in its entirety, but selectively, in a manner prejudicial to the prosecution case
• Alleges that during the trial the judges have also made inappropriate interventions to the prosecution witnesses, thereby adversely impacting their testimony

The Attorney General’s Department has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court over the decision taken by a special High Court Trial-at-Bar to acquit and release five suspects who were indicted for trafficking 196 kg of heroin. 

The appeal filed by State Counsel Kanishka Rajakaruna on behalf of the Attorney General maintained that the judgement delivered by the Colombo High Court Trial-at-Bar was without a fair trial, contrary to the law and without considering the evidence which was produced before the Court. 

The Attorney General through the petition is seeking an order to remand the suspects yet again and a retrial to be commenced against them. The High Court Trial-at-Bar had ordered the acquittal and release of the five suspects, identified as Anura Appuhamy, Thavarasa Sudakaran, Aglesa Pille Thavarasa, Lasantha Appuhamy and Kandiyah Chandrakumar on 6 April. 

The suspects were arrested on 19 April 2019 after Sri Lanka Navy personnel led by Captain Anil Bowatta on vessel Sagara found 196 kg of heroin on a multi-day fishing vessel named ‘St. Anthony’ in the high seas off the Northern coast of Sri Lanka. 

The drug bust was carried out as a joint operation together with the Sri Lanka Navy, Police Narcotics Bureau (PNB) and the State Intelligence Service (SIS). After hearing the case within six months, the Colombo High Court Trial-at-Bar observed that the prosecution was unable to prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The High Court Trial-at-Bar bench comprising of Colombo High Court Judges Adithya Patabendige, Manjula Thilakaratne and Mahesh Weeraman held there were contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution, which had a major impact on the case thus ordering the acquittal and release of the suspects. 

However, in the appeal, the Attorney General’s Department has noted that prior to the Trial-at-Bar, at the time of granting bail to one suspect the High Court judge who presided over the case made a predetermined conclusion that the initial information received from the SIS which led to the arrests were improbable. The same judge was later designated as the President of the Trial-at-Bar appointed for the case. 

The Attorney General said that despite requesting for recusal of the said judge due to the possibility of his predetermined conclusion prejudicing the proceedings, deliberations and decisions of the Trial-at-Bar, it was refused. The Attorney General also noted the lack of time given for the prosecution to prepare compared to the time given to the Defence. The failure of the High Court at bar to consider the corroborative and consistent evidence of the Naval personnel who made the detection and arrest of the respondents with 196 kg of heroin was also highlighted in the appeal.

The Attorney General also noted that the evidence of two principal witnesses for the prosecution was distorted and discredited based on a few inconsistencies such as inconsistency in time recording and confusion in markings of the sacks the heroin was carried in but said they were not material to the core of the case and the charges against the respondents. The appeal said material facts of the prosecution case such as the five respondents admitting that the Navy personnel inspected and weighed the drug haul in their presence as well as the evidence of the Government Analyst that there were heroin traces in the empty sacks had not been considered appropriately, although this fact has been confirmed as an admission by the President of the High Court at Bar himself.

The appeal before the Supreme Court also drew its attention to the fact the five suspects have given varying accounts but that contradictions were not considered by the High Court. 

“The evidence has not been considered in its entirety, but selectively, in a manner prejudicial to the Prosecution case,” the appeal said adding that during the trial the judges have also made inappropriate interventions to the prosecution witnesses, thereby adversely impacting their testimony and the prosecution case. The Attorney General said therefore the prosecution could not obtain a fair trial and judgement.