Appeals, legal process and why yesterday’s death sentences are not the final chapter
COLOMBO, Saturday – Although former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando and former Inspector General of Police Pujith Jayasundera were yesterday sentenced to death by the Trial-at-Bar, the judgment does not mark the end of the legal process.
Under Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system, both men are entitled to challenge their convictions and sentences before the Supreme Court.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
The appellate court will examine the findings of fact reached by the Trial-at-Bar, the interpretation of the law and whether the convictions are supported by the evidence presented during the lengthy proceedings.
Legal practitioners noted yesterday that appeals in cases of this magnitude are likely to involve extensive argument on the scope of criminal liability arising from a failure to perform official duties. Questions surrounding causation, the legal obligations attached to public office and the threshold for criminal negligence are expected to feature prominently before the appellate bench.
Until those appeals have been concluded, yesterday’s judgment cannot be regarded as the final legal determination of the case.
The convictions remain subject to review in accordance with the rights available to every accused person under Sri Lankan law.
The sentences themselves have also generated considerable public discussion. Although the death penalty remains part of Sri Lanka’s statute book and continues to be imposed by courts in appropriate cases, executions have not been carried out in the country for many years. Consequently, death sentences have generally been followed by the appellate process and, where appropriate, consideration under the constitutional procedures governing clemency.
The significance of yesterday’s decision therefore lies less in the immediate implementation of the sentence than in the legal principles established by the Trial-at-Bar. The Court concluded that senior public officials entrusted with statutory responsibility for national security may, in appropriate circumstances, incur criminal liability where failures in the discharge of those responsibilities contribute to catastrophic consequences.
Constitutional lawyers observed that the appellate proceedings will be closely watched because the Supreme Court’s determination is likely to clarify the extent to which omissions by holders of high public office can attract criminal responsibility. That guidance may have implications extending beyond this case and influence future prosecutions involving public administration and command responsibility.
For the families affected by the Easter Sunday attacks, the appeals represent another stage in a judicial process that has continued for several years. While yesterday’s judgment was welcomed by some as a significant step towards accountability, others emphasised that broader investigations into the attacks and the circumstances surrounding them continue to attract public interest.
The coming months are therefore expected to shift attention from the findings of the Trial-at-Bar to the arguments that will be presented before the Supreme Court. Whatever the outcome, yesterday’s decision has already secured a place in Sri Lanka’s legal history. The appellate courts must now determine whether the principles adopted by the Trial-at-Bar will ultimately become part of the country’s enduring jurisprudence.
