Per Amarasinghe J : I am left with the definite and firm conviction that there was no violation of the petitioner's freedom of speech and expression: I cannot conclude that the petitioner was unable to explain his case fully for lack of the apprehended material when it has not been established that he spoke at all. Moreover, having regard to what was demanded and expected of him, it has not been established that the material was necessary for discharging his duties as a speaker at the Geneva meeting. The petitioner has failed to show that it was even receivable. In fact, the evidence points to the probability that the material given up by him was irrelevant to the purposes of the meeting and were not admissible and publishable at all at that meeting. The subsequent release of the material enabled the petitioner, and left him free, to publish the material, at a time and in a manner he was expected to do so, by those with whom he wished to communicate.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/research/srilanka/caselaw/Arrest/Mahinda_Rajapakshe_v_Kudahetti_&_Others.htm
SUPREME COURT
BANDARANAYAKE, J.
AMERASINGHE J. AND
DHEERARATNE, J.
18 AND 19 JUNE, 1992.
You may enjoy reading this case judgement for your pleasure.
