Thilakaratne v. Attorney General – sllr 1989 volume 2 page 191

In Thilakaratne (Plaintiff) versus Attorney‐General (Defendant), the court addressed the issue of whether an accused who is tried in absentia should have counsel assigned without consent, with reference to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, notably sections 241(1), 241(2), 241(4), and 195(g). The matter also concerned the adequacy of evidence regarding the accused’s alleged absconding and its effect on the right to a reopened trial. It was held that clear evidence established the accused’s abscondence and that counsel cannot be assigned in absentia without consent, as doing so would extinguish the right to later reopen proceedings. The judgment relied on statutory interpretation and procedural safeguards to conclude that the conviction and sentences should stand, reinforcing th