A DEFENCE lawyer has argued that the charge against Occupational Health and Safety inspector Ashneel Nath does not comply with Section 66 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires that where an offence is alleged to have been committed by an omission, the omission must be specifically described rather than merely stated.
Appearing before Justice Thushara Rajasinghe on July 9, lawyer Karl Jamnadas submitted that the information simply alleged an omission without identifying the specific omission Mr Nath was alleged to have committed.
Mr Nath is charged with manslaughter arising from an alleged breach of duty after a woman died when she fell from a Ferris wheel.
The prosecution alleges Mr Nath failed to properly carry out inspection duties before the ride was put into operation, including ensuring that the operators were competent, properly trained and licensed.
Mr Jamnadas told the court he had repeatedly raised the issue over the past eight months, but the State had been unable to clearly identify the precise act or omission alleged against his client.
The State, represented by Principal Legal Officer Sadaf Shameem, has been given until July 16 to amend the information.
Mr Nath is expected to enter his plea on July 23.
