Untitled - International Commission of Jurists
Untitled - International Commission of Jurists
Untitled - International Commission of Jurists
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
assembly and association <strong>of</strong> trade unions were severely curtailed. After the<br />
insurrection, about fourteen thousand people were arrested. Charges <strong>of</strong> conspiracy to<br />
wage war against the Queen, ‘conspiracy to overawe by means <strong>of</strong> criminal force’ the<br />
Government <strong>of</strong> Ceylon, waging war in various places in Ceylon and abetment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
waging <strong>of</strong> such war were served on the suspects.<br />
A particular feature <strong>of</strong> this period was the enactment <strong>of</strong> the Criminal Justice<br />
<strong>Commission</strong> Act No. 14 <strong>of</strong> 1972 (‘the CJC Act’). The drafting <strong>of</strong> the CJC Act<br />
commenced in 1971 and was assented to by the Governor-General on 8 April, 1972, a<br />
little over a year after the insurrection. None <strong>of</strong> the several thousands in custody were<br />
brought to trial until the CJC Act had been passed. The principal purpose <strong>of</strong> the Act<br />
was two fold: to deal with the persons involved in the insurrection and with persons<br />
who committed <strong>of</strong>fences in relation to currency or foreign exchange on such a scale as<br />
to endanger the national economy. In the exercise <strong>of</strong> these two functions, the CJC sat<br />
as the Criminal Justice <strong>Commission</strong> (Insurgency) and Criminal Justice <strong>Commission</strong><br />
(Foreign Exchange).<br />
The CJC was brought into being on the basis that the practice and procedure <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ordinary courts were inadequate “to administer Criminal Justice for the purpose <strong>of</strong><br />
securing trial and punishment <strong>of</strong> the persons who committed such <strong>of</strong>fences.” 21 It was<br />
established by a warrant <strong>of</strong> the Governor-General being <strong>of</strong> the opinion that the<br />
<strong>of</strong>fences against the State committed either during a rebellion or insurrection or<br />
exchange control <strong>of</strong>fence could not be dealt with by the normal laws. 22 Section 11<br />
stipulated that an inquiry before a <strong>Commission</strong> was to be free from the formalities and<br />
technicalities <strong>of</strong> the rules <strong>of</strong> procedure ordinarily applicable to a court <strong>of</strong> law and was<br />
to be conducted in a manner not inconsistent with the principles <strong>of</strong> natural justice.<br />
Under Section 25, the findings made or sentence imposed by a <strong>Commission</strong> were<br />
decreed to be final and conclusive and could not be called into question “in any court<br />
or tribunal, whether by way <strong>of</strong> action, application in revision, appeal, writ or<br />
otherwise.” Section 11(2) (g) permitted the admission <strong>of</strong> a report <strong>of</strong> a person<br />
pertaining to the committal <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fences in question and made in the course <strong>of</strong> his<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial duties, the only restriction being that the report should not contain specific<br />
reference to the suspect on trial. 23<br />
The provisions <strong>of</strong> Section 11 opened the door to the introduction in evidence, as<br />
substantive evidence, <strong>of</strong> confessionary statements made to police <strong>of</strong>ficers by suspects.<br />
This constituted a radical departure from the normal law, which had prohibited the<br />
leading <strong>of</strong> evidence <strong>of</strong> statements made by a suspect to a police <strong>of</strong>ficer that even<br />
suggested an inference <strong>of</strong> a confession. 24 The provisions <strong>of</strong> the CJC Act evoked<br />
criticism for politicizing the judicial system. 25<br />
21 Criminal Justice <strong>Commission</strong> Act, No. 14 <strong>of</strong> 1972, Section 2(1)(b).<br />
22 ibid, Section 2(1)(a).<br />
23 However, at the inquiry the authors <strong>of</strong> these reports were called as witnesses and after being called<br />
upon to read their reports before the <strong>Commission</strong>, were subjected to cross’examination.<br />
24 Evidence Ordinance, Sections 24, 25(1) and (2) and 26(1) and (2) shut out, in the normal course <strong>of</strong><br />
events, three categories <strong>of</strong> confessions: confessions caused by an inducement, threat or promise,<br />
confessions made to a police <strong>of</strong>ficer, a forest <strong>of</strong>ficer or an excise <strong>of</strong>ficer and confessions made by any<br />
person while in the custody <strong>of</strong> these three categories <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficers. The old cases went so far in their<br />
liberal reasoning as to affirm that the concept <strong>of</strong> ‘police custody’ does not ‘necessarily connote the<br />
21