On 4/4/25 The Council of Reference posted a 'Definitive Public Response' (hereafter 'DPR') to a series of serious allegations of criminal misconduct in Sri Lanka.


In Section 5, pertaining to two convicted serial, child rapists, the report the authors question
1/ 'Where the rapes took place?
2/ Whether they took place? or in their own words, 'whether the accused are guilty as charged'?


There was a 9 year delay in the High Court hearing the case, and difficulty in filing the case in the first place.
Two courts blamed this delay on the police and court clerks in Trincomalee, in a country, where as the authors of DPR amply remind us, bribery is rife.

The High Court Judge, Manickavasagar Ilamcheliyan named and blamed the supervisor of the home, namely Jeyakanth Selvarajah, in his summing up, and this is corroborated by the press reports.

It seems extraordinary after 9 years of judicial delay and the extraordinary bravery for the young woman survivor to testify, in finally obtaining a conviction of her two rapists at the High Court on October 17th, 2019, (HCT/852/2018), for the LEF then to support an application to the Appeal Court.
This resulted in a rigorous ruling, with the sentence being lengthened in 2/8/2022. (CA/HCC/0298/2019).
Then LEF again supported an appeal to Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, only to see the appeal summarily rejected on 23/9/2023, despite the use of an expensive Colombo-based law firm of Islamist lawyers, acting on behalf of a casual labourer. (SPL LA 0245/2022). The other co-defendant had died in prison.

The report at the time of the earliest alerts to this matter, completely ignores the allegation of child rape.
Jeyakanth and the LEF's UK representative at the time, involved the more senior and now convicted rapist, not as a witness, but as a participant and advisor to the investigation, despite direct allegations against him.

That employee was then engaged by Jeyakanth to collect the death certificate of the girl's father, as the 'Officer in Charge, LEFC' and 'guardian', according to the certificate, under contested circumstances about the nature of the death, who was also involved in the rapes.
He was used by LEF as a legal representative in signing documents relating to LEFC, and to the girls' case, despite being accused.
He also acts as a legal representative and signatory for LEF for other formal matters for years after, until his conviction.

The DPR claims it wishes to be sensitive to the victim, but in the very same paragraph, a mere two sentences later, states 'anyone falsely accused of such serious crimes is also a victim'. Then the authors' presume to overturn the ruling of three courts.
Who bribed the Supreme Court - a destitute family?

As to the question of the location, the DPR challenges the Appeal Court ruling, on the basis that the initial police report indicates the rapes took place in the sisters' home, not the care home.
Even if true, does this exonerate Jeyakanth?

His two or more employees (the Appeal Court mentions 'Rajendran', who has still not been identified, and the girls' father was a casual employee at the compound) 'regularly', nightly drug and rape a child.
Both the Court Summons and the Bail documents for the rapes gives their single address as Ward 8, Illupaikulam, Trincomalee.
The Death Certificate for her father and a formal Educational Report for the girl, gives her residential address, on 6/11/2011 and 28/7/2011, as identical with the two defendants, namely the Grace Education Centre Compound at 6MP.
The girls' father's house and residential compound for children are about 50 metres apart.


Chithran is short for and Siththiravel an alternate transcription for the occupant of the cottage at the top of the page, where the crimes took place.

Now are the authors of the report concerned with safeguarding of Jeyakanth's current charges in the 6MP compound?
If the same thing was to happen again, what would their response be now?

At the time of the conviction, in 2019, Jeyakanth wrote these claims:

*'The case was brought by their mother’s sister, who hoped, it seems, to make money from an out of court'
* George and Mariyadas [the rapists].. refused this as they knew they were innocent.
* Earlier she [the aunt] had also falsely accused their father of rape as she wanted to take her sister’s land from him.
* She contacted some enemies of LEFC including Ps. Murali [sic], who wrote many letters to the judge criticising the Children’s Home using different pseudo-names.

Not only are these claims, which LEF has not apologised for, or renounced, they remain undocumented and unproven, they flatly contradict local court testimony, they are libellous, but also extremely offensive to the victim and her family.
They have doubled down on them.

Now, the DPR authors claim, after interviewing witnesses, all presumably selected by Jeyakanth, again without a shred of documentation:
* The victim's husband is a drug dealer.
* The two sisters behaved moodily, promiscuously and irrationally in the Centre (all common sequelae of abuse).
* The aunt, her advocate, is a divorcee, a liar and teaches her nieces to lie, based on the testimony of three ladies, one of whom works with Jeyakanth in the office.
* That Mariyadas and George 'were not that sort of people'.
* That Mariyadas denies the crime, has never seen JK since entering the prison, and was 'never an employee in the home', despite the press and court reports.
* That Mariyadas has nevertheless repented of other sins and now leads a saintly life in prison.
* That miraculously, the two investigators were granted extra time with Mariyadas, despite usual prison regulations.
* That many other collaborators with and supporters of Jeyakanth have never believed the rapes took place either.

This is the character of the man who the DPR defends.
Is keeping their reputation so important to these men?

Do you have confidence that if a case of serial child rape arose again, LEF would react appropriately?
Paedophiles are almost always recidivist.
There have been uncorroborated reports of similar problems, which is precisely why two of us reported CSL to the Charity Commission, whilst alerting their UK office.

Incidentally, it may surprise our friends, but medical evidence of repeated, involuntary buggery, especially in a child, is often easy to detect for the rest of the victim's life, let alone 14 months.

An archive of files pertaining to LEFC.

The Cooke-Mullins Report.

LEF's Definitive Public Response - an introductory reply.

Section 5 - a series of child rapes at 6MP, by JK's employees, covered up by JK and LEF, till now.

Appendix 2. Thambalagamam. The 'gamekeeper' is a poacher, a 'fraudulent' letter has been authenticated by the Sri Lankan Government Agent.

Section 8.6, p.87 - The unanswered questions about an early house purchase in Mitcham, which was first denied.

Section 8.12, p.94 The 6 pastors' letter of complaint about JK's immorality and extortion - specific questions about land registration.

Home