A High Court judge, Sarath Ambipitiya, was assassinated on the 21st November 2004. Within seven months the criminal investigations and the trial were completed with a three member trial at bar finding the suspects guilty and sentencing them to death. According to reports the trial took 25 days for completion.
Perhaps this, the speediest trial into a serious crime ever conducted in Sri Lanka offers several valuable lessons to be learned.
Firstly, cases can be completed speedily.
The general lamentation in Sri Lanka shared by citizens, bureaucrats, judges, prosecutors and other lawyers and politicians alike is that the trial process in Sri Lanka is beset with extraordinary delays. It has even been said that without more courts, more judges, more prosecutors and more funds these delays cannot be cured. However, the Ambepitiya case demonstrates that this is not always true. This particular case was completed within seven months. It would be a slur on the judiciary if it were to be said that this case was considered as a special one and therefore some special procedure was followed. Everyone is equal before the law, legally speaking, therefore the murder of a judge is of no more importance that the murder of even the most humble of citizens in the country. Besides this more prominent persons have been assassinated previously. A prime minister, a president and several cabinet ministers are among those who have been assassinated. However, on those occasions the trials were not so swift. Thus, it should be a matter for celebration that for once a trial has been conducted speedily demonstrating that this is now a possibility in Sri Lanka. One would hope that the principle of equality before the law would be more vigorously pursued by trying to repeat the performance in other cases.
Second, the hearings were conducted on a day to day basis.
In its entirety the trial took 25 days. The case was heard on a day-to-day basis as cases used to be heard when jury trials were conducted. However, common procedure in High Court trials today is that partial evidence is taken on one day and then the case is postponed for several months depending on the courts calendar. Thus, a case may be heard over 25 separate days with at least three months lapsing between each day of trial. This would mean that six years might pass before the court could reach a conclusion. Thus a lesson that the Ambepitiya case has taught us is that if criminal trials are heard from beginning to end in one session, meaning back-to-back daily hearings, it is possible to overcome the present impasse and to ensure speedy trial. Usually the spacing of dates is blamed on the courts work overload or lawyers finding excuses to have distant dates set. The Ambepitiya trial, however, shows that such excuses are unjustified and that when a case is pursued with determination it is possible to overcome all other difficulties. In the case of judge Ambepitiya, three judges were involved as it was a trial at bar. If this could be done in his case, then surely this could be emulated in other trials where only one judge is present.
Third, the security of witnesses was ensured.
Another marked feature of the Ambepitiya case is that none of the witnesses were subjected to any severe injury. Nor did any witness withdraw due to personal safety or fear. It was reported that there were threats to some witnesses in the case. However, the fact that this trial was conducted speedily helped to ensure that the time period witnesses might be exposed to threat was significantly shortened. Given that the accused were alleged to be persons with underworld connections with a lot of money to spend and a lot of power to wield, serious damage could have been done to the witnesses if the trial took the normal course as in other cases. Thus, a lesson taught from this trial is that witness protection requires that the trials be conducted speedily. Not so long ago a solicitor general noted that one of the reasons for the low rate of success in prosecutions was due to witnesses withdrawing their evidence or changing their positions due to a fear of the repercussions of their involvement. However, if the cases are heard speedily this fear factor may become less of an issue in future trials. The possibility of corruption was also limited due to the speediness of the trial.
Fourth, the use of forensic evidence was crucial.
In Ambepitiyas case the reliance on forensic evidence such as DNA and other evidence was crucial. Given the principle of equality before the law there is no reason now to deny any person the use of such evidence in the conduct of trials. A lack of resources or facilities cannot be used as an excuse. Preferential use of forensic facilities will seriously violate the very principles on which the justice system is based.
Fifth, the use of special units for investigations played a significant role.
The conduct of the investigation in this case was conducted by special units of the Criminal Investigation Department. It may be interesting to speculate as to what might have happened if the investigations were conducted under the normal policing channels such as the local police stations. There were reports in the early stages of the investigation that there was interference from some senior police officers regarding the investigation into this case. That is a factor that is always present when investigations are conducted through various police stations where the Officer-in-Charge is the chief investigator. This system, which was introduced during colonial times, is now obsolete. Conduct into serious crimes is best done by specialised units rather that through the normal channels of a police station which is also much more open to undesirable practices and local pressures.
Evident from the Ambepitiya case is the greater effectiveness and likelihood of justice when a trial is conducted speedily, when delays are avoided, when witnesses are properly protected, when forensic evidence is used and when specialised units rather than local police are employed to investigate the case. Ordinary citizens of Sri Lanka, like high profile judges, have an equal right to this type of trial and it is the responsibility of the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure that this right is met.
