In a recent rule, the Supreme Court has suspended Attorney-at-Law for five years due to misconduct related to her handling of Provincial High Court Case, involving charges of sexual abuse of a thirteen-year-old girl. The core of the allegations was that Attorney, serving as defense counsel, engaged in deceitful practices. Specifically, Attorney was accused of …
SC Suspends Attorney for Five Years – Misleading Practices in High-Profile Sexual Abuse Case
In a recent rule, the Supreme Court has suspended Attorney-at-Law for five years due to misconduct related to her handling of Provincial High Court Case, involving charges of sexual abuse of a thirteen-year-old girl.
The core of the allegations was that Attorney, serving as defense counsel, engaged in deceitful practices. Specifically, Attorney was accused of instructing a prosecution witness (PW 1) to prepare a misleading affidavit and accepting a signed blank sheet of paper to facilitate this.
This affidavit, dated 31st July 2018, purportedly portrayed the accused in a more favorable light and included statements that misrepresented the facts of the case. The affidavit suggested that the prosecution witness had willingly visited the accused’s house and had not been subjected to sexual harassment, a claim that undermined the seriousness of the allegations.
Attorney was charged under Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978, which allows for disciplinary action against attorneys found guilty of misconduct or deemed unfit to practice law. Additionally, Rule 79 of the Supreme Court Rules of 1978 and Rules 60 and 61 of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette of Attorney-at-Law) Rules of 1988, which address deceit, malpractice, and the requirement for honorable conduct, were cited in the proceedings.
The Court’s ruling was shaped by opinions from three-judge Bench. Justice S. Thurairaja underscored the gravity of Attorney’s misconduct, emphasizing the impact on the judicial process and the victim. Despite acknowledging the plea for leniency and the mitigating factors, Thurairaja highlighted the extensive judicial resources expended and the severe nature of the offense, resulting in a ten-year suspension.
However, Justice A. L. Shiran Gooneratne, recognizing Attorney’s remorse and the fact that this was her first offense, reduced suspension of five years. Justice Janak De Silva concurred with Gooneratne, advocating for a proportionate suspension aligned with the misconduct and circumstances of the case.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court imposed a five-year suspension, reflecting both the seriousness of the offense and the mitigating factors. The Registrar of the Supreme Court was instructed to implement the suspension.
Case: SC Rule No. 01/2021
Decided on: 31 July 2024
Judges: S. Thurairaja, PC, J., A. L. Shiran Gooneratne, J., and Janak De Silva, J.
