The Chief Magistrate delivered the judgement under Section 4A of the Public Order Act of the UK and imposed a lower notional financial penalty, but did not consider it appropriate to issue a warrant.
The Judge, who had previously ruled that the defendant was not protected by diplomatic immunity, did not revisit that ruling.
She had also rejected the abuse of process argument.
The Government of Sri Lanka continues to maintain that Brigadier Fernando as a diplomat who was attached to the Sri Lanka High Commission in London is entitled to diplomatic immunity as per Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.
In January 2019, at the time summons was first issued by the Magistrate’s Court of Westminster, the then British High Commissioner was summoned by the Foreign Secretary and a protest was lodged against the legal proceedings in British Courts disregarding diplomatic immunities of Brigadier Priyanka Fernando in respect of the alleged incident.
A request was made through the British High Commission in Colombo that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, take necessary steps to ensure a review of the process including the order of the Magistrate’s Court of Westminster to correct the Court’s misunderstanding of International Law and the lapse on the part of the Court administration to bring to the attention of the Magistrate the contents of the Diplomatic Note sent by the Government of Sri Lanka claiming immunity.
The sequence of events – the private prosecution, failure to uphold Brigadier Fernando’s diplomatic immunities, the timing of the delivering of the judgement on the eve of the UK elections, the alleged unruly behaviour of the supporters of the prosecution during Court hearings who were also carrying LTTE flags during these hearings, the alleged leaking of privileged information submitted in Court by the defence to the public domain by the private prosecution, makes abundantly clear that this is a politically motivated action.