Comments on: Extended time in police custody: Is it Necessary or permissible?

By: alex f

alex f — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:32:58 +0000

The photo says it all … Sri Lanka’s police are mere thugs backed by the law. Amusingly there is little difference between the police and the illegal Tamil paramilitaries, which says it all.

By: Leela

Leela — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 02:25:52 +0000

Writer says, “No civilized or free country permits this kind of incarceration in its legal system.”

Leave out the writer described archaic laws that were introduced to combat yester freedom fighters; the so-called epitome of democracy, the US not just introduced a nastier act named ‘the Patriot act’ in 2001 for four years to fight Al Qaeda terrorists.

It’s a nasty act than all our similar act put together for US authorities can search anything and anyone with easy warrant and detain a suspect indefinitely. In spite of Bin Laden being killed, the US President has extended it every four years to date.

Many people in the US support ‘the Patriot act’ for it allows law enforcement agencies to use surveillance against suspected terrorists, conduct investigations without outside interference and the ability to search business and other records in national security cases without a mountain of red tape.

But you said; “This kind of limiting freedom cannot be allowed. This is contrary to all forms of criminal justice throughout the world.” I say; just like the US citizens, we too should not allow rump LTTE and its backers and sympathisers to regroup in the name of democracy and freedom which they have taken for an ass for three decades. What do you say, Neil?
Leela

By: Cas Shivas

Cas Shivas — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:36:40 +0000

Lawyers who appear in Magistrates Courts know that in most of the cases this will only be an extension of time for extensive torture in Police stations.Further with a weak judiciary(unlike in India – it is unfortunate that we never had a Judge like V.R.Krishna Iyer or Bhagvati) and young inexperienced Magistrates often appointed through political channels one can imagine the plight of the suspects. First and foremost 18A should be repealed and independent constitutional Council must come into existence,if any semblence of justice is to be seen in Sri Lanka. Although 19A is good it is better that President(of BASL)Rajapakse works towards the removal of 18A.

By: Pandukabaya de Silva

Pandukabaya de Silva — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:48:51 +0000

Instead of writing about this in GV, why has the writer who is headng a provincial bar asociation, not raised it wih the President of the Bar? The Hon. Mr Rajapakse has said some tripe as reported in the newspapers that this increased detention will not really make such a big difference? He has not been contradicted by any Bar Council member or any head of a provincial affiliate.

Why, Mr Dias?

By: Thass

Thass — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:08:06 +0000

The punishment should fit the crime. The accused cannot be punished until found guilty. He should be afforded full protection under the law to prove his innocence.
The Police should not have the power to imprison a person on trivial or unknown charges. The issue is too serious to allow the Police time to drag their feet and do things in their own cool time. Anyone visiting a Police Station will know how things are done there and the filthy conditions in their cells.
Instead of giving more time shouldnt the Govt improve the system to provide more protection to innocent accused people and swift commission of the process of Justice.

By: Roshan

Roshan — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:50:06 +0000

The writer has made very some important points.

Detention would have a mentally debilitating effect on a detainee. A person who is removed from his familiar surroundings would be deprived of his comfort zone. He becomes disoriented while he is inside a police cell and may become amenable to suggestion and coercive treatment.

While the police cannot be denied the power to investigate, the intervention of an independent judicial authority is necessary to safeguard his rights and interests given the fact that the full force of state power is brought to bear upon him in when the investigatory process is set in motion.

The law has required in the main that he is brought before a Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. The Magistrate will have to be persuaded of the necessity for extending his detention. The extension of this period to 48 hours before he is produced before a Magistrate is an unwarranted intrusion into the liberty of a person.