Subjective Suspicion Must Be Supported by Objective Grounds for Arrests Under PTA
SC Reaffirms Dual Requirement for Arrests Under PTA
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that when effecting an arrest under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), the burden is on the arresting officer to prove that he had subjectively formed the required suspicion prior to the arrest, and in addition, that there was objectively reason for such belief. Citing RTLA Weerawansa v. Attorney General [2000] 1 Sri L.R. 387, the Court held that both elements must be satisfied. It also referred to Sita Gunasekara v. A.T. De Fonseka and Others (55 NLR 246), reiterating that “an officer who arrests a person suspected of an offence must himself entertain the suspicion”.
“…When ascertaining as to whether reasonable grounds existed for the arrest to be carried out, it is important to consider the case of Sita Gunasekara V. A.T. De Fonseka and 2 others 55 NLR 246, which was concerning an arrest made under emergency regulations. That case also deals with the issue of ascertaining ‘reasonable grounds for suspecting the commission of an offence’. In Sita Gunasekara (supra), the Superintendent had informed the ASP to carry out the arrest. It was stated that, it was the superintendent and not the ASP himself who suspected that the petitioner had been concerned in an offence under emergency regulations. It was stated that, “…an officer who arrests a person suspected of an offence must himself entertain the suspicion”. The facts of the above case are quite distinct to the case at hand. In the above case, the ASP carried out the arrest without conducting any inquiries and seemingly without entertaining suspicion. However, when considering the case at hand, the 4th respondent had recorded statements from the officers of media organizations which broadcasted the press conference, had also recorded statements from the public and had himself carried out the investigations. It is vital to note that, as explained in Sita Gunasekara(supra), the ‘reasonable suspicion’ must be entertained subjectively.
However, in the case of RTLA Weerawansa V. Attorney General [2000] 1 SLR 387 which dealt with an arrest and detention made under the PTA, His Lordship Fernando J. stated that, “… not only must the Minister of Defense subjectively have the required belief or suspicion, but there must also be objectively, reason for such belief.” When considering the case of Weerawansa(supra) the burden is on the 4th respondent to prove that he had subjectively formed the required suspicion before carrying out the arrest of the petitioner. Additionally, he must also prove that there was objectively reason for such belief…”
-Justice K. Priyantha Fernando
Case No. : SC/FR Application No. 97/2021 [Decided on 12.12.2024]
Before: E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, J Mahinda Samayawardhena, J K. Priyantha Fernando, J
