IN RE MRS. LILLIAN RAJAPAKSE

075-NLR-NLR-V-72-IN-RE-MRS.-LILLIAN-RAJAPAKSE.pdf


ALLES, J.—In rc Rajapakse
352
1968. Present : Alles, J.
In re Mrs. LILLIAN RAJAPAKSE -In the matter of an Offence of Contempt of CourtS. C. 290/66—31. 31. C. Colombo, 66626
Contempt of Court—2'ampering with a juror in the course of a pending case—Punishability—Courts Ordinance {Cap. 6), s. 47.
Whore, while «• trial before the Supremo Court is proceeding, a person attemptsto intorfero with one of the jurors with tho intention of influencing the decisionof tho juror in the case, ho is liable to bo punished for tho offenco of contempt ofCourt under section 47 of tho Courts Ordinance.
Rule under section 47 of the Courts Ordinance.
G. E. Chitty, Q.C., with Sena Wijewardene, G. E. Chitty (Junior) andSam Siloa, for the respondent.
T. A. de S’. Wijesundera, Senior Crown Counsel, as Amicu-s Curiae.
Cur. ado. oult.
July 18, 1968. Alles, J.—■
In this matter the respondent, Mrs. Lillian Rajapakse, was asked byme to show cause why she should not be punished for the offence ofcontempt in that she did, on 25th June 196S, attempt to interfere withone of the jurors hi S.C. 290/66 ; M.M.C. Colombo 36626, then being tried
1 {ISOS) Matara Cases 10.
353
•ALLES, J.—In re Bojaf.akse
by a Judge and a jury before the Supreme Court at Colombo and whichinterference was likely to influence the decision of the juror in thecase.
In S.C. 290/6G, four accused’were tried before inc and a Sinhalese-speaking jury on two counts of an indictment charging them withconspiracy to commit the murder of the Hon. Mr. V. A. Sugathadasa..Minister of Nationalised Services, and with conspiracy to commit themurder of Air. A. W. A. Abcygunasckora, Chairman of the Port CargoCorporation. The trial commenced on 11th June 19GS .and continuedfrom day to day. On 25th June, the prosecution closed its case and the4th accused was acquitted by the Jury. On 27th June, it was broughtto my notice by learned Crown Counsel for the defence that investigationswere being conducted by the Police into an alleged interference of one ofthe jurors b3r the respondent, on the evening of 25th June. I wasfurnished with a statement of the respondent recorded by the Police andI was satisfied that there was a prima facie case of interference of thejuror by the respondent. I was also satisfied that there was no mis-conduct on the part of the juror concerned and that there was no breachof the oath of separation by him. No application was made by theCrown or t lie defence for a discharge of the jury. The trial was concludedon 30th June and the remaining three accused were unanimously foundnot guilty of the charges by the jury. After the trial was concluded Isummoned the respondent and asked her to show cause why she shouldnot be punished for the offence of contempt under section 47 of theCourts Ordinance. I gave her time till 3rd July to retain Counsel andseek legal advice, and the inquiry commenced on 4th Juty.
Crown Counsel, who appeared as a micus curiae, led evidence to establishthe prima facie case against the respondent. Thereafter Counsel for therespondent stated that he had cause to show, led the evidence of therespondent and addressed Court.
The case against the respondent consisted of the evidence of thejuror concerned, Gnanaratna, supported by the testimony of TcebalGajanaj-ake.
Gnanaratne is a peon employed at George Steuart and Company,living at 200/3, Suvisuddharama Road, Pcamank.ade, with his wife andfamily. His wife Mercy is the daughter of one Jane Akka, living at thesame premises. According to Gnanaratne, after jury service oil theevening of the 25th, he wore a sarong and shirt and went, carrying hischild, to purchase some eggs from a boutique. When he was at theboutique a person, later identified as Teebal Gajanayake, accosted himand asked him “ Are you the person who has married Jane Akka’sdaughter ? ” to which question he replied in the affirmative. Hereturned home, left the child and came back to the boutique when Teebaltold him that one Sonny who lived in the respondent’s house wanted to
354
ALLES, J.–Jn re Jiajapulse
meet him. Teebal accompanied him to the house which was shown tohim by Teebal and left him at the entrance. He entered the house,inquired for Sonny and met the respondent who asked him to sit down.Then the respondent asked him whether lie was on the jury in connectionwith the Bomb case. He says he got alarmed when he heard the word“jury” and wanted to leave immediately. The respondent then toldhim t: One of the accused is the father of either four or six children. It isthe jury who have to decide the case. Please give some assisla?ice by acquittingthe accused Gnanaratnc got frightened and did not reply. He wantedto leave but the respondent insisted that ho should have a cup of teawhich was offered to him and after hurriedly sipping some tea he left theplace immediately afterwards. He sa3-s he got alarmed because he knewthat the respondent became aware that he was serving on the jury andhe thought that she was trying to interfere with his final decision in thecase. He stoutly denied the suggestion of Counsel for the respondentthat he went to the respondent’s house on his own, and that lie engagedthe respondent in a conversation as to whether she- knew any of theaccused. He said that when he returned home lie informed his wife ofhis visit to the respondent’s house and she reminded him that about twoyears previously they had gone there on a wedding visit. The juror didnot pay heed to the conversation and did not mention it to anybody. Infact the Police advisedly did not record his statement since he was stillon jury service at the time.
Gnanaratne’s evidence of the visit to the respondent’s house is corro-borated by Teebal who said that it was at. the instance of one Sugathadasathat he pointed out- the respondent’s house to Gnanaratnc. . Teebal wasknown to Sugathadasa for some time as a supporter of the Lanka SamaSaraaja Party—some of the accused at the trial were members of the sameParty. Teebal says that on the 24th, Sugathadasa met him and showedhim a piece of paper with the address 200/3, Suvisuddharama Boadwritten on it and asked him to find out the occupants of the house andwhether Gnanaratnc was living there. He went with Sugathadasa andverified this information. On the 25th Sugathadasa met him about 5.30p.m. on. the road'and as they were walking along the- road the}* sawGnanaratnc carrying a child and Sugathadasa told him that he was theperson. Then Sugathadasa told Teebal to show Gnanaratnc SonnyCaldera’s (the respondent’s) house. Teebal met Gnanaratnc and foldhim that ho was .wanted at the respondent’s house, showed him the houseand left him at the door-step. Although Teebal was a friend ofSugathadasa, lie was a supporter o£ the United National Party andinformed the authorities that an attempt was being made to influencethe jurors. It was in consequence of his information that the Policeconducted inquiries.
Gnanaratnc was cross-examined at length bj' Mr. Chit tv and althoughhe appeared to be excitable and somewhat indignant that he was beingquestioned in .regard to a transaction which was not of his own seekingand over which he had no control, ho impressed me as being a truthful
ALLES, J.—In re Bail poise
355
witness. There was no reason why lie should make a false charge againstthe respondent, who was virtually a stranger to him and I accept hisevidence that lie was taken to the respondent’s house and an attemptmade by the respondent to influence him to give a decision in favour ofthe accused on trial.
The respondent is a young married woman 33 years of age, a trainedteacher from the Polgolla Training School, had been a Sinhalese teacherfor 10 years and taught in several schools. At the relevant date she wasteaching in the otli Standard at St. John’s Vidi'alaya, Dematagoda. Herhusband was the Manager of a Theatre at Nuwara Eliya. She hadknown Padma Sugathadasa, the wife of Sugathadasa, when they wereboth teachers in the same school at Xugegoda and had visited them. Shesays that she was not interested in the Bomb case and never even readabout it in the newspapers and professed ignorance of a juror’s dutiesand did not even know that in trials before the Supreme Court it was thejury who convicted or acquitted. I amimableto accept hcr evidence onthis point particularly as she admits that the juror did inform her justjireviously, that they had acquitted the 4th accused. In these days ofenlightened education it is difficult to believe that a person in the positionof the respondent was ignorant of matters which even school children arcconversant with.
She says that on the evening of the 25th, Sugathadasa came to herhouse and showed her a piece of paper with a name written on it andasked her whether she knew Gnanaratne. When she stated she did not,Sugathadasa inquired whether she knew Jane Akka of SuvisuddharamaRoad and he said that Gnanaratne was the son-in-law of that Jane Ak.ka.Sugathadasa told her that he wanted to meet Gnanaratne. He thensaid that a friend of his who was the father of six children was involvedin the Bomb case and expressed sympathy for the accused. He thenleft. About half an hour later, a person dressed in a dirty sarong andshirt (identified as Gnanaratne) came to the house and asked her whetherit was Sonny Caldera’s house. He then said he was the husband ofMercy, the daughter of Jane Akka. He sat down with his legs crossedand smiling. The respondent questioned him about his family becauseshe recognised the juror as a person who was married to an associate ofhers, being married to Jane Akka’s daughter who was known to herfrom childhood. She then inquired whether he was coming from hisworkplace and he replied in a boastful manner that he was a juror in theBomb case. She was surprised and said “ Do they choose people likeyou for jury service ? ”. Gnanaratne then informed her that today theyhad acquitted the 4th accused. Then she saj's she remembered whatSugathadasa told her earlier and said that a friend of Sugathadasa wasinvolved in the case and that he had six children. She said thatSugathadasa had felt sorry for him. Gnanaratne did not reply, dranksome tea and left the place. Sugathadasa again came to her house acouple of hours later and asked her whether anybody had come to herplace. She did not tell him that she had conveyed what he had said to
350
ALLES, J.—In re Hajapakse
the juror although she mentioned to Sugathadasa that a man in a dirtysarong had come to see her. She further said she did not know* his namewas Gnanaratnc. Having regard to Sugathadasa’s first visit and as towliafc transpired on that occasion, it is hard to believe that Sugathadasadid not tell the respondent to speak to the juror and request her toinfluence the juror—She denied that she asked for any relief from tlvojuror when Gnanaratnc appeared half an hour later after Sugathadasaleft. Gnanaratlie’s visit soon after Sugathadasa’s departure stronglysuggests a link between the two visits and the only reasonable inferenceto be drawn from the respondent’s evidence is that she- was asked toinfluence the juror and that she did not casually convey Sugathadasa’sinformation to Gnanaratne without intending to influence him. Indeed,that there is a link between the two visits is clear from Tccbal’s evidence.It is also remarkable that she denied having informed Sugathadasa laterthat evening that she made no mention of the conversation she had withGnanaratnc. The suggestion of Crown Counsel, which is in accordancewith the evidence of Gnanaratnc and the reasonable probabilities in therespondent’s version is that Sugathadasa had approached the respondent-to speak to Gnanaratne, whose family was known to the respondent, totry and influence the juror whose visit to the respondent’s house wasarranged by Sugathadasa'. The juror was spoken to by the respondenton the lines suggested by Sugathadasa and Sugathadasa came later toinquire whether the act had been accomplished. Mr. Chitty concededthat Sugathadasa was responsible for involving the respondent in thistransaction and was trying to abort the trial by influencing a juror—afact that might be brought to the notice of the Court—but his positionwas that, though the respondent might have acted foolishly in speakingto the juror, she did not have any intention of influencing the juror norwas she aware that her conduct might be so construed.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Gnanaratnc’s evidence ofthe conversation is true and his evidence is supported by the circum-stantial evidence relating to the visits of Sugathadasa as spoken to by therespondent. This evidence clearly establishes that the resjmndent didattempt to influence the juror and that she is guilty of tho offence ofcontempt of Court.
The question of sentence has caused me considerable anxiety. It wasbrought to my notice that any punishment of the respondent for theoffence of contempt would adversely affect the respondent's career ns aGovernment teacher. I agree with Mr. Chitty that the villain of thepieco is Sugathadasa, who, according to Teebal had already told himthat he had approached three jurors earlier and who, in view of his wife’sassociation with the respondent had used the respondent as a tool toattempt to influence a fourth-juror. In view of my findings and havingregard to the respondent’s educational qualifications it is impossible toaccept the defence evidence that the respondent’s act only savoured offolly and indiscretion. She must have known that attempting toinfluenco the decision of a juror was an act of impropriety, even if it was
Joseph v. Inspector oj Police' 357
the result of mistaken sympathy on her part. I -would not have hesitatedto impose a term of imprisonment on the respondent, had it not been forthe fact that I am satisfied that she was a tool in the hands of a morescheming person. The administration of justice must always remain pureand the Court must be ever vigilant against an3r attempt to pollute thestream of justice. Tampering with jurors in the course of a pending caseis a very serious form of contempt. Jurors perform very responsibleduties and the Courts must necessarily be gravely concerned at anyattempt to tamper with the free exercise of a juror’s decision in a pendingcase.
Section 47 of the Courts Ordinance provides for a term of imprisonmentuntil the contempt is purged or a fine not exceeding Rs. 5,000. Therespondent has expressed her regret for what she calls her foolish act ofspeaking to the juror. But it is essentialTirthe-interests-of-the adminis-tration of justice to take a serious view of the respondent’s conduct. Toimpose a nominal fine in a case of this nature is not only farcical butis likely to stultify the Courts of law in the eyes of the public. Asubstantial fine is essential if only to serve as a deterrent to personslike minded not to interfere with jurors in pending cases. I thereforeimpose a fine of Rs. 500 on the respondent, in default one month’ssimple imprisonment. A month’s time will be granted for the pa}’mcntof the fine.-
Rule made absolute.