AG objects to five psychiatric reports on Sallay

‘Suicide risk’ vs ‘Oscar-worthy act’: Court hears contrasting claims on Sallay 

By Bhagya Silva  

Appearing on behalf of the Criminal Investigation Department, Additional Solicitor General (ASG)Dileepa Peiris informed Court that a specialist forensic medical board should be appointed through the Director General of Health Services to assess the health condition of the suspect while he remains under detention and interrogation. He accordingly sought an appropriate Order from Court.  
Objecting to the psychiatric report prepared by a panel of five consultant psychiatrists, the ASG made submissions before court.  
Meanwhile, Shavindra Fernando (PC), appearing for Sallay, informed court that his client had developed anxiety and depression after being placed under detention and was facing a risk of self-harm. Counsel requested that Sallay be provided with a suitable therapeutic environment and necessary medical treatment. A medical report prepared by a panel of five consultant psychiatrists regarding Sallay’s mental condition was also tendered to Court by the defence. However, the CID objected to the report and sought its rejection.  
The President’s Counsel submitted that the predecessor Magistrate had personally visited and examined the suspect at the CID detention facility on March 24 and had recorded his observations. Counsel told Court that Sallay had complained of difficulties relating to his medical condition, lack of facilities at the detention centre and restrictions imposed upon him, although he had also stated that the investigating officers treated him well.    >>A2
Counsel further referred to an Order made by the previous Magistrate on April 22 directing that the suspect be examined by a nutrition specialist, psychiatrist and ophthalmologist under the supervision of the Judicial Medical Officer and that reports be submitted to Court. He argued that although recommendations had been made regarding Sallay’s diet and health requirements, there was no indication that those recommendations had been properly implemented.  
The defence maintained that Sallay had not suffered from any psychiatric condition before being placed under detention and argued that his present condition had developed while in CID custody. Referring to the psychiatrists’ reports, Counsel alleged that the suspect had been subjected to mental torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.  
President’s Counsel submitted that the psychiatric reports indicated symptoms of anxiety, depression and a significant risk of suicide. He argued that the medical experts had recommended treatment in a suitable therapeutic setting and had expressed the view that such treatment could not adequately be provided in his current place of detention.  

Counsel further referred to an Order made by the previous Magistrate on April 22 directing that the suspect be examined by a nutrition specialist, psychiatrist and ophthalmologist under the supervision of the Judicial Medical Officer and that reports be submitted to Court. He argued that although recommendations had been made regarding Sallay’s diet and health requirements, there was no indication that those recommendations had been properly implemented.  
The defence maintained that Sallay had not suffered from any psychiatric condition before being placed under detention and argued that his present condition had developed while in CID custody. Referring to the psychiatrists’ reports, Counsel alleged that the suspect had been subjected to mental torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.  
President’s Counsel submitted that the psychiatric reports indicated symptoms of anxiety, depression and a significant risk of suicide. He argued that the medical experts had recommended treatment in a suitable therapeutic setting and had expressed the view that such treatment could not adequately be provided in his current place of detention. 
The defence further contended that Sri Lanka had both domestic and international obligations to investigate allegations of torture and referred to the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Convention Against Torture Act. Counsel requested Court to direct that Sallay be transferred to a more suitable environment where he could receive appropriate treatment while investigations continued.  
During submissions before Court, Shavindra Fernando (PC), appearing for former State Intelligence Service Director Suresh Sallay, contended that based on the findings contained in the reports of the five consultant psychiatrists who examined the suspect, the Court should consider granting appropriate relief under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).  
Counsel submitted that, in terms of Sections 9B(3), 9B(4) and 9B(5) of the PTA, the suspect should be provided with the necessary medical treatment and a suitable environment conducive to his mental health condition. He further argued that the relevant authorities should take any necessary legal action to determine whether the suspect had been subjected to torture or any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment while in custody.  
Counsel maintained that the medical opinions expressed by the panel of psychiatrists warranted the Court’s consideration of measures aimed at safeguarding the suspect’s health and wellbeing in accordance with the provisions of the PTA.  
Responding to those submissions, ASG Dileepa Peiris strongly rejected the allegations and claimed that the suspect was engaged in what he described as an “Oscar-worthy performance.”  
ASG Dileepa Peiris submitted that the suspect, who was arrested on February 25, had sought extraordinary relief from Court and was attempting to mislead the Court by claiming to suffer from a mental condition only after medical reports were obtained in May.  
He argued that if the suspect had genuinely suffered from a psychiatric disorder, it should have been disclosed much earlier through medical evidence. The ASG alleged that the defence was attempting to use the psychiatric reports to gain an advantage in related legal proceedings and divert attention from the investigation.  
Referring to the psychiatrist’s report, ASG noted that the suspect had reportedly cried throughout the examination, but pointed out that he had never displayed such behaviour before Court and had no prior history of mental illness. He further questioned claims of memory loss, stating that investigators had recovered passwords to the suspect’s devices despite his assertions that he could not remember them.  
The ASG also rejected allegations of ill-treatment, maintaining that the suspect had received proper care and medical attention while in custody, including access to specialist clinics and regular communication with family members. He submitted that the CID had taken extensive measures to ensure the suspect’s welfare and security.  
ASG contended that the filing of motions alleging mistreatment and mental illness was an attempt to mislead Court and shift the focus of the proceedings.  
Appearing on behalf of the aggrieved party, Rienzie Arsecularatne submitted that it is common for a person placed under arrest to develop psychological difficulties and that such conditions are not unusual.  
Responding to the submissions made by the ASG, Shavindra Fernando (PC), appearing for the suspect, told Court,  
“We did not use this medical report as part of any conspiracy, as suggested by the ASG. We received the medical reports on May 21 and filed our Motion only yesterday. This report has been prepared by a panel of five consultant psychiatrists. The medical reports concerning the suspect were prepared under the supervision of specialist medical professionals. Consultant psychiatrists do not submit false reports.  
“It was said that someone deserves an Oscar award. There is a person in this courtroom who deserves an Oscar award. The Director General of Health Services cannot independently undertake this exercise because it is a political appointment. This is a matter that should be addressed independently by the Attorney General. This investigation has now reached a stage where even the slightest degree of public confidence in the process has been undermined.”  
After considering the submissions made by both parties, the Magistrate stated that an Order on the respective applications and requests would be delivered on June 10.