Category: Queen v liyanage case

APRIL 3, Administration of Justice Law, No. The petitioner moved to revise the order made by the High Court of Jaffnarefusing to grant him bail pending his appeal against his conviction andsentence.

Dietrich v The Queen

The High Court refused the application on the ground that the petitioner hasnot shown any exceptional circumstances. It was contended that the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code old would not be applicable after the passing of the Administration of Justice Law AJL more particularly section 3 and that there was no burden cast onthe petitioner to show that exceptional circumstances existed, and that, bailshould be granted unless good grounds existed for its refusal.

Held: Per Vythialingam, J. That the intention of the legislature in enacting section 3 AJL was not to make the grant of bail a matter of course unless goodgrounds were shown to the contrary is made clear by section 2 AJL Per Vythialingam, J.

There is a marked difference between thewords of sections 32 and 3.

Liyanage v The Queen: PC 1967

Supreme Court has no inherent right to grant bail, nor has it powerto do so under the Commort Law. The power to grant bail is nowvested in the Court by the AJL and other relevant enactments. Ithas wide discretion to grant or refuse bail under section 3. Per Vythialingam,J.

Requirement of exceptional circumstances should not bemechanically insisted upon. In the special circumstances of this case having regard to theserious nature of the charge of which the petitioner has beenconvicted, the severity of the punishment that was meted out tohim, and the consequent temptation to abscond, the High Courtwas correct in refusing to admit the petitioner to bail on the groundof exceptional circumstances.

A Pullenayagam with C.

Xpand 2 vst reddit

Mothilal Nehru, Dr. Tiruchelvam and T. EdwardChandra for petitioner. Wijesinghe, Senior State Counsel for A. The petitioner in this case moves this Court to revise the order 01made by the High Court Judge, Jaffna, refusing to grant him bailpending his appeal to this Court against his conviction andsentence in that Court.

The grounds on which he relied for the grant of bail are that hehas to make arrangements to retain Counsel to argue his appealand to attend to other matters relating thereto, that he is the father 10of six children who are still attending school, that he is fifty-fiveyears old, is suffering from rheumatism, feeble and ill, that he is afarmer and that he has not been convicted or even charged in anyCourt of Law prior to this.

The High Court refused the application for bail on the groundthat the petitioner was the person who started the quarrel on thatday and that during the trial it had been brought to his notice that abreach of the peace was imminent as soon as the case wasconcluded, so much so that he had to direct the Police to patrol thearea for two weeks to avoid clashes.

Pullenayagam for the petitioners submitted that the words mustbe given their natural and ordinary meaning and that having regardto the legislative history of the section the position now under thenew Act is that bail pending appeal should ordinarily be grantedunless there are good grounds for refusing it.

queen v liyanage case

Pullenayagam submitted that this section made significantchanges in the law as it stood in regard to the granting of bail. No discretion to refuse bail was vested insuch a case. On the other hand in the case of an appeal by a personconvicted after trial in the Supreme Court, a discretion was vestedin the Court of Criminal Appeal to grant or refuse bail, becausesection 15 1 of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act Cap 7 providedthat the Court may, if they think fit, on the application of anappellant, admit the appellant to bail pending the determination ofhis appeal.A group of Christian officers in the military and police planned to topple the government of Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike during the night of 27 January Organised by Colonel F.

Later, it was revealed that the coup had the backing of several former statesmen, [3] [4] and brought out the brewing conflict between the entrenched elites and the newly emerging elites in post-independence Sri Lanka. Ceylon gained independence from Britain in and renamed the Dominion of Ceylon, marking the beginning of self-rule for the local population.

However much of the political, governmental and military leadership of the country was passed down from the British to the Ceylonese Christian elitewho had risen to positions of power largely owing to their education and religion. In S. Bandaranaikean Anglican who converted to Buddhismwas elected after a nationalistic movement in which he gathered the support of the Buddhist Sinhalese people majority of the country, who were considered underprivileged compared to the Christian minority.

As promised during the election Bandaranaike began a rapid Sinhalisation of all parts of the government, which culminated in the passage of the controversial Sinhala Only Act. Prior to these changes, the officer corps of the army were composed of three-fifths Christian, one-fifth Tamiland one-fifth Burgher. Bandaranaike moved to balance this by increasing the number of Buddhist Sinhalese officers. After sending the serving Inspector General of Police IGP Osmund de Silva on compulsorily retirement for refusing to carryout Bandaranaike's orders which de Silva considered to be unlawful, Bandaranaike appointed a Buddhist civil servant, M.

Walter F. Abeykoon from the Lands Settlement Department, over three other senior Christian police officers. This caused much resentment among the senior officers of the police, who tenured their resignations, which were later withdrawn.

InBandaranaike was assassinated leading to a period of political turmoil, that resulted in his widow, Sirima Bandaranaike emerging as the leader of his party and gaining a majority in parliament, thus becoming the first female prime minister in the world in She continued her husbands policies, with Felix Dias Bandaranaike and N.

queen v liyanage case

Dias serving as her close advisers. By resentment was building up among the Christians, who felt that they were systematically being eliminated. The regime appear to have targeted minority communities by taking over and renaming Catholic schools, whilst at the same time some of the elite Anglican schools were not targeted.

The country's economy worsened, resulting in increasing cost of living and rising unemployment. The military coup by General Ayub Khan in Pakistan inspired a group of disenchanted officers to take action. In Februarythe Federal Party launched a Satyagraha against the language policy of the government.

The government responded by dispatching army units to the Jaffna District and declaring a state of emergency under the Public Security Act. Several Tamil leaders were arrested under emergency regulations and the Satyagraha came to a halt. The emergency regulations was in force till January This allowed the government to retain volunteer units reservists mobilized and used these units during trade union strikes and civil disturbance. Involunteer units were placed on compulsory leave without pay, reducing expenditure and retaining the units in mobilized state so that they can be recalled faster than in a mobilization.

In OctoberFelix Dias Bandaranaike Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of External Affairs issued an order to the service commanders to prepare for a series of strikes and rioting by Leftist and trade unions. The government at this stage delayed implementation wage revisions based on the P.

This resulted in several strike action by Port workers and Ceylon Transport Board in November and Decemberwhich was followed by a general strike. The Ceylon Volunteer Force was deployed and restored much of the operations.Fernando, J.

Section 2 of the Official Language Act, No. Any direction is'shed by the Minister of Justice under section Aof the Criminal Procedure Code shall be final and conclusive, and shall notbe called in question in any Court, whether by way of writ or otherwise.

Where the Minister of Justice issues a direction under section Aof-the Criminal Procedure Code that the trial of any offence shall be heldbefore the Supreme Court at Bar by three Judges without a jury, the threeJudges shall be nominated the Minister of Justice, and the Chief Justiceif so nominated or, if he iB not so.

Gojek career singapore

The Court consisting of the three Judges so nominated shall, for all purposes,be duly constituted, and accordingly the constitution of that Court, and its'jurisdiction to try that offence, shall not be called in question in any Court,whether by way of writ or otherwise. Liyanage and others Special Provisions Act, ho filed in the Court a document nominating threeJudges to'preside over the trial.

The direction and nomination.

Meizu m5c diagram diagram base website m5c diagram

Held, i that, even assuming that on or aftor 1st January lyoi official, actsof officials. Special Provisions Act empowering. Minister of Justice to issue direction that a Trial at Bar be held by threeJudgos without a jury, under section A of the Criminal Procedure Code,is intra vires the Legislature. Order made in respect of certain preliminary objections taken to aTrial at Bar which, was sought to be held under the provisions of theCriminal Law Special Provisions Act, No.

Ponnambalam, Q. Kadirgcimar, E. Gkoksy, for the 1st and 2nd Defendants, raised certain preli-minary objections. Constitution is an entrenched clause J because an amendment can only be passed by a two third majority.

Queen v. Liyanage and otiiers. Harris 4 S. Thondaman 61 N. Ellis A.Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our privacy policy. Someone recently bought our. Technical settings. Someone recently bought our students are currently browsing our notes. This act legalised holding Ds without warrant for arrest or trial for longer than the period allowed by law, altered the law of evidence so as to ensure their conviction and made admissible to the court statements made by them that would normally have been inadmissible AND it specified what punishments should be given to them.

The Privy council NB NOT binding on UK courts rejected the argument that Ds should be acquitted on grounds of natural justice but did quash the convictions because the act of the Ceylon parliament usurped the judicial function of the courts, making a law specifically for punishing Ds, and thus breaching the separation of powers which was enshrined under the constitution of Ceylon.

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Constitutional Law study materials?Appreciation of criminal evidence — few observations by apex courts. Whenever a witness appears before Court, the Court will proceed on the basis that he is competent to testify. When a person of tender years or extreme old age or a person who suffers from disease or other abnormality of the body or mind, the Court is alert on the need to decide whether oath can be administered. Ramalingam Selvaratnam C.

Revision Application No. Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence. The reliability of evidence adduced by a dumb witness must be considered in light of the facts and circumstances of each case.

There exists no general standard or straightjacket formula applicable to such cases. Whereas a dumb witness could testify in court in the manner prescribed in Sec. In evaluating such evidence an essential prerequisite would be to ascertain and determine whether testimony given by the said witness, was understood with clarity and whether such question was answered logically.

queen v liyanage case

Importantly the court must be satisfied as to whether the interpreter sufficiently understood the witness and was conveyed through him without distortion, so that such is recorded by the court. Priyantha Priyalal B. An accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars. These statutory provisions, read together, create a conundrum of sorts leading to the conclusion that the creditworthiness of an accomplice is dependent upon whether his evidence, in material particulars, is corroborated by another source, whereas a conviction based solely on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is not illegal.

Yet, such a conviction would undoubtedly be a dangerous and unsafe one. Thus, it is within the purview of the Courts to consider the creditworthiness of each accomplice, apply their mind and search for cogent and conclusive factors that satisfy them that the accomplice is in fact, reliable, if they are to convict solely on his evidence.

Kumarihamy, Chief Registrar, Colombo S. TAB Appeal No. Liyanage and Others 67 NLR In our law of evidence the salutary principle is enunciated that evidence must not be counted, but weighed and the evidence of a single solitary witness if cogent and impressive could be acted upon by a Court of law. Attorney General — 3 Sri LR According to section of the Evidence Ordinance particular number of witnesses are not required to establish a fact.

Section of the Evidence Ordinance lays down a specific rule that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact, thus attaching more importance to the quality of evidence rather than the quantity.

The established rule of practice in such circumstances is to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. However, caution must be exercised by a trial judge in evaluating such evidence and arriving at a conclusion against an offender. If such a proposition were to be accepted it would impose an added burden on the prosecution to call more than one witness on the back of the Indictment to prove its case in a drug related offence however satisfactory the evidence of the main police witness would be.

Cognitiva significado psicologico

Devunderage Nihal 1 Sri LR Secondly section of the Evidence Ordinance does not require a particular number of witnesses for the proof of any fact. When the evidence before the trial judge is credible and can be acted upon without any hesitation I see no reason for the judge to look for further material. State, 76 NLR Know more. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter.

Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.

Leave your message here. Log In India UK. How is this helpful for me? Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.

Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.

Subtitleseeker got season 4

The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. Create your profile now Close. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. ON OFF. Click Here.

Don John Francis Douglas Liyanage and others REASONS v. The Queen (Ceylon)

Upload pleading to use the new AI search. Click Here to Upload. Case Information. No Acts. This is a paid feature. Please subscribe to download the judgment. Edit Citation. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Citation.

Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change. Save Cancel. Add Equivalent Citation.

queen v liyanage case

Add Cancel.To that extent, legislative power may interfere with the courts' independent adjudication of a pending case without being unconstitutional. The critical proviso is that such an interference must be achieved by a proper exercise of legislative power; that is, by a change in the law. This principle has been referred to as the 'Changed Law Rule', [6] and shall be referred to as such hereafter. The corollary is that if such interference is achieved by a purported exercise of legislative power that is other than substantively legislative, it will be an unconstitutional interference with judicial functions.

The critical issue for determination is whether discrete and precise principles can be derived from the separation principle to define those elements of legislation which 'interfere' with a pending case in such a way as to render it not in substance a change in the law, and hence unconstitutional. Unlike the case of a clear usurpation of judicial power, such as a Bill of Attainder, [7] or with legislation which seeks to require the court to exercise that power in a way clearly inconsistent with judicial power or with its very nature as a court, [8] this is not an immediately obvious exercise.

Nevertheless, examining the efficacy of the separation principle in this particular scenario does constitute a measure of the broader efficacy of the legal entrenchment of a principle whose origins lay in political theory.

Such a transition from the realm of political theory into that of legal rule redefines the very principle itself. As Sir Anthony Mason has noted:. The attempt to limit legislative power in the pending case scenario pursuant to the separation principle has not entirely succeeded in Australia. This article will argue that the reason is not the failure to define a discrete set of principles applicable to it. Rather, it has been the uncertain reception of and commitment to these principles by the High Court.

The elevation of the separation principle into the realm of constitutional and legal rules remains the original contribution of the United States Constitution[10] reflecting the influence of Montesquieu in particular, who, in De L'Esprit Des Lois[11] recognised the importance of the protection of the independence of judicial power in order to preserve liberal government. Such views found expansive articulation in The Federalist papers [12] at the moment of the framing of that nation's Constitution.

Indeed, it was the Americans who advocated the higher protection afforded the judicial power—particularly from interference by the legislature—by this elevation. Moreover, in the context of the drafting of the Constitutionthis was regarded as an issue of the highest priority.

Madison, and indeed other contributors to The Federalistwere influenced by their own experience of colonial and post-revolutionary legislatures dominating and indeed usurping the adjudicative functions of the courts by acting institutionally as courts, indeed commonly functioning as courts of equity or appellate courts, and even hearing suits at first instance.

The inevitable reaction was noted by Edward Corwin: '[t]he period Thus, when the Americans were drafting the terms of the Constitutionthe specific concern raised by such egregious interferences with the courts' adjudicative functions by legislatures was at the forefront.

Jefferson referred to the existence of the practice in his state of Virginia, where its Assembly had 'in many instances decided rights that should have been left to judiciary controversy.

The solution was the adoption of a legal separation of judicial power whereby the 'interpretation of the laws' would be 'the proper and peculiar province of the courts'. It was apparent that parliamentary supremacy, unrestrained by legally entrenched limitations, had lost the confidence of the American Framers. Whilst the separation principle has been held to be legally entrenched in the Australian Constitution[27] it is questionable whether the framers specifically intended to incorporate the doctrine as a legal imperative.

The earliest evidence of an Australian consciousness of the issue is found amongst the early constitutional scholars.