030-NLR-NLR-V-74-THE-QUEEEN-v.-N.-L.-CORNELIS-SILVA.pdf
VVliERAMAXTRY, J.—The Queen v. Cornells Silva
113
[Court or CimrixAL Appeal]
1969Present:Weeramantry, J.
THE QUEEN v. N. L. CORNELLS SILVAS.C. J4/GS 31.C. Gampahct, 14757jA.—In the matter of an Applicationfor Pail in terms of Section 75 of the Court of Criminal AppealOrdinance
Court oj Criminal Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 7)—Section Id—Grant oj bail thereunder—
Requirement oj exceptional circumstances—Relevancy of sentence.
Rolonso on bail ponding appeal (o (ho Court of Criminal Appeal will only bogranted in exceptional circumstances.
Whore tho sontonco is a long ono, tho more circumstance that tho hearing offcho appeal is not likely to fake plnco for a fortnight ora month is of itself noground for tho grant of bail.
./^.PPLrCATION for bail under section 15 of tho Court of CriminalAppeal Ordinance.
Shanmuc/anathan, for the petitioner.
S. W. B. IVadurjodapiliija, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
Cur. atlv. vull.
January' 3, 1069. IVeeramaxtry, J.—
Tho petitioner in this ease has been convicted on a charge of attemptedmurder and has been sentenced to a term of four years’ rigorousimprisonment. Against this conviction and sentcnco ho has appealedto the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The petitioner now seeks to be admitted to bail in terms of section 15of the Court of Criminal Appeal Ordinance.
Tho grounds urged in support of his application aro firstly that thosentence came as a surprise to him and that he therefore could not makeprovision for tho education of his children and tho other affairs of thefamily and secondly that ho needs an opportunity to collect tho necessaryfinances to conduct his appeal and tho appeal of his eldest son who hasalso been convicted along with him.
114
WEERAMANTKY, J.—7 he Queen v. Cornelia Silva
It is a settled principle that release on bail pending appeal totho Court of Criminal Appeal will only bo granted in exceptionalcircumstances. I do not think tho circumstances urged aro sufficient tomake the petitioner’s caso an exceptional one.
Tho first of these reasons scarcely bears examination while the difficultyenvisaged in tho second ground is by no means extraordinary as it is onewhich would bo common to very many accused persons.
I am informed that it is unlikely that tho petitioner’s appeal will bolisted at the next sitting of this Court and in this connection the caso oftho Queen v. Punchi Banda 1 has been cited. In that case however therewere additional circumstances among which was the fact that thesentence imposed was short. In the present case the sentence is a longone and tho mere circumstance that the hearing is not likely to take placofor a fortnight or a month is of itself no ground. I may in this connectionrefer to tho caso of tho Queen v. Perera -. In that case it was held thatdelay likely to ensue in preparation of a brief owing to tho production ofa largo number of exhibits, in a case wliero over 100 witnesses woreexamined and more than 400 exhibits wero produced, was not a reasonfor tho grant of bail. Tho Court in refusing bail reiterated the principlethat the grant of bail by the Court of Criminal Appeal was an exceptionaland unusual course.
Tho case of the Queen v. Suppar Navaratnam 3 has been brought to mynotice as an instance in which this Court has enlarged an accused personon bail pending the decision of his appeal. In that case the appellantwas indicted on a charge of attempted murder but was found guilty ofthe offence of voluntarily causing grevious hurt and sentenced to a termof three years’ rigorous imprisonment. There wero a number of groundson which the application for bail was supported, one of which was thatwhile the appellant was in jwison his wife had given birth to her first childwho was being neglected by tho appellant’s parents as they had dis-approved of the marriage. There were also a number of other groundsurged. It is not necessary to enter upon a further examination of thatcaso for tho ground which I havo already referred to was an exceptionalcircumstanco which was sufficient to justify tho order of this Court.
A perusal of the decided cases would appear to indicate that thorequirement of exceptional circumstances has been strictly insisted onand in my view no sufficient case of exceptional circumstances asunderstood by this.Court has been made out.
I have accordingly refused tlie application and now set out mv reasonsfor doing so.
Application refused.
1 {WOO) 02 C. L. M 15.1 {W5S) 02 N. L. It. 23S.
* s. c. 11JM. C. Jaffna 225S6[Criminal Appeal Ao. 13S of 1002.