Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
..... there is indeed an urgent need for protection of journalists like the respondent who with skill and commitment respond to the journalistic duty to honor the citizenry of our nation by fulfilling their primary obligation to report on facts in an unbiased, independent, undistorted, and disciplined manner, providing the unvarnished truth whilst maintaining an objective perspective of the people and events ..... this is seen clearly in the united kingdom where section 171(3) of the copyrights designs and patents act 1988 provides the courts with the jurisdiction to refrain from enforcing copyright claims on the grounds of ..... consider two principle questions: (i) did the respondent tender consent to the appellant to allow the latter's publication of the photographs and (ii) did the respondent have the capacity to consent to their publication in the first place or put another way did the respondent's employment arrangement between "aththa" newspapers allow the respondent to retain ownership of the photographs. ..... failure during the proceedings before the high court to (i) challenge the originality and ownership of the work or to (ii) lead any evidence during the course of the trial or at the time of cross-examination, are errors in litigation strategy that cannot be rectified through appeal. ..... this court will refer to the berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works 1886 (as amended, hereinafter referred to as the "berne convention"), to which sri lanka is a signatory ..... (1981) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
..... , it is noteworthy that, according to the evidence of ip methias silva, the body was found only 7-8 feet away from the road which indicates that the 2nd accused couldve reached the place where the victim was shot within in a very short period of time whereas the 1st, 3rd and 4th accused and the victim couldve alighted from the vehicle prior to the 2nd accused ..... them as well while the counsel for the 1st accused, in particular, averred that he had been denied a right to a fair trial due to the dismissal of his defence by the learned judges of the trial-at-bar in which they relied on the judgement given in dadimuni indrasena and dadimuni wimalasena v ag (2008). in this regard, this court makes reference to section 69 of the penal code which states as follows: nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason ..... to section 87 of the penal code which states the following: except murder and offences against the state punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequent; provided the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, ..... , para 395, prosecutor v tihomir blaskic (it-95-14), para 333 and in the case of united states v karl brandt et al doctors trial ..... lucas (1981) (2 all er 1008) which was .....
Tag this Judgment!