The Counsel representing the Attorney General today informed Court that the Negombo Magistrate had no authority to order the deportation of British tourist Naomi Coleman, who had a tattoo of the Buddha on her upper arm.

He made this submission when the Fundamental Rights Petition filed by her was taken up for hearing.

Assistant Solicitor General Jayantha Jayasuriya PC appearing for the respondents said the Negombo Magistrate had no authority to order the deportation of Ms. Coleman, who was arrested, detained and then deported for the reason that she had the figure of the Buddha seated on a lotus leaf tattooed on her upper arm.

She was detained on April 22 and deported to Britain on April 25 with an apology by the Sri Lanka Tourist Board which had apologised to her for what had happened and provided her with a business class ticket.

However, the Counsel said the Tattoo should be taken into account with another Tattoo located above the shoulder and pointed out that the Buddha Tattoo taken in that context had the potential to damage the sentiments of the people and as such he said that the arrest of Ms. Coleman was legal.

He therefore said the actions of the Police officer was legal and the Supreme Court could not inquire in to the order of the magistrate in a Fundamental Rights petition although the Magistrate had no authority to make such order.

Counsel J.C Weliamuna appearing for Ms. Coleman quoting the B report filed at the Negombo Magistrate’s Court said the arresting officer had done so only on noticing the Buddha tattoo and not the one above it. Therefore Mr. Weliamuna said the argument brought up the state counsel was baseless.

He said that the Counsel appearing for the Attorney General was making a moral argument with no basis in law.

He also said the tourist had visited the country twice before without any hindrance or obstruction.

Counsel Weliamuna said the tourist was arbitrarily arrested and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the law enforcement authorities.
He said the legal arguments were clearly against the arbitrary arrest and showed that the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner were violated as a result of their action.

The Bench comprising Justices Chandra Ekanayake, Saleem Marsoof and Eva Wanasundera considering the submissions made by both parties granted leave to proceed for  the infringement of Article 11, 12 (1) and 13 of the constitution.

The next hearing was fixed for December 15^th.

Jayantha Jayasuriya PC with Parinda Ranasinghe appeared for the Respondents while J.C. Weliamuna, Pulasthi Hewamanna, Tishya Weragoda and Hafeel Farisz instructed by Vishwa De Livera Tennakoon appeared for the petitioner.