Appeal Court dismisses legal challenge by ‘fugitive from justice’
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a legal challenge brought by an American citizen who fled the country while facing sports corruption charges, ruling that he failed to meet bail conditions for judicial review.
Amil Patel, also known as Yogi Patel, residing in Pennsylvania, had sought to quash criminal proceedings against him under the Prevention of Offences Relating to Sports Act No.24 of 2019. However, his application was rejected after he left Sri Lanka in violation of court-imposed bail conditions.
Patel was indicted by the Matale High Court in May 2024 on charges of sports corruption. As part of his bail conditions, he was prohibited from leaving the country until the conclusion of his trial. The prosecution began presenting evidence in August 2024 after Patel entered a plea of not guilty.
Patel was charged with match-fixing after Sri Lanka’s chief cricket selector, Upul Tharanga, disclosed that the Indian national had approached him to fix matches during the 2024 Legends League tournament played at the Pallekele International Cricket Stadium.
Despite being a US citizen, Patel’s requests to have his travel restrictions relaxed to visit family were refused by the High Court. Without appealing this decision through normal channels, he filed a writ application with the Court of Appeal in December 2024, seeking to have both the indictment and travel ban quashed.
Justice Damith Thotawatte, delivering the judgment with Justice Dhammika Ganepola concurring, identified several critical flaws in Patel’s application. The court noted an “unreasonable and unexplained delay” of nearly seven months between when Patel received his indictment and when he sought judicial review.
“Considering the facts and circumstances of this particular case, it is my view that there is an unreasonable and unexplained delay seeking redress and as such the Petitioner is guilty of laches,” Justice Thotawatte stated.
The judgment emphasised that jurisdictional challenges could have been raised in the trial court itself, which would have provided “a relatively convenient and speedier remedy”. Most significantly, the court applied the equitable principle of “clean hands”, noting that Patel had fled the country after filing his application, in direct violation of his bail conditions.
“The Petitioner after filing this application has fled the country deliberately violating the conditions upon which he was released on bail,” the judgment stated.
“It is my view that a person with such contempt for legal processes should not be entitled to seek prerogative remedies from this court”.
The court observed that Patel’s actions suggested he was attempting to evade legal consequences whilst simultaneously seeking relief from the courts. The judgment referenced several landmark cases in Sri Lankan administrative law, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Somasunderam Vanniasingham v. Forbes, which established that alternative remedies need not be exhausted if they are inadequate or ineffective.
However, the court distinguished Patel’s case, finding that adequate alternative remedies were available and that his failure to pursue them, combined with his contemptuous conduct, barred him from seeking judicial review. Following his departure from Sri Lanka, Patel is now considered a fugitive from justice. His legal team had indicated they would only pursue the challenge to quash the indictment, as the other reliefs sought regarding travel restrictions had become redundant.
The dismissal means the criminal proceedings in the Matale High Court remain valid, though Patel’s absence from the jurisdiction presents practical challenges for the prosecution of the case.
On March 25, the case was concluded in absentia where he was sentenced to four years in prison for attempting to fix matches and imposed Rs. 85 million fine on Patel. He was also ordered to pay Rs. 2 million in compensation to Upul Tharanga. Since he has left the country a warrant has been issued for his arrest.
Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath represented the respondents while Neranjan Jayasinghe with Mehesh Alugampitiya, Randunu Heellage and Imangsi Senerath appeared for the petitioner.