Negombo’s Magistrate issues a sharp warning and bans a young lawyer from a high-profile narcotics hearing after officers say he tried to video-call his client from inside court. The British suspect, 21-year-old former flight attendant Charlotte May Lee, remains in remand until 3 September over an alleged 46.6kg “Kush” seizure—said to be the largest in the airport’s customs history.
What really happened in Courtroom No. 02
A routine custody appearance turned messy in Negombo Magistrate’s Court No. 02 when a junior lawyer, present on behalf of a foreign national detainee, asked prison officers for a brief word with his client. According to the officers, he then slipped his mobile phone into his court bag and leaned in close to the detainee—only for the officers to realise a video call was live. The phone was confiscated on the spot and placed before the Magistrate with a written report.
The line he crossed, according to the bench
Mobile phones are permitted for officers of the court to manage official matters. What they are not for, the Magistrate emphasised, is furtive calling—least of all video chatting a remand prisoner mid-hearing. The court treated the act as a misuse of privilege and a breach of decorum in a sensitive narcotics matter.
The warning: “Your licence could be on the line”
From the bench came a stark caution: if escalated to the Supreme Court, the conduct could endanger the lawyer’s right to practise. The Magistrate ultimately opted for leniency—accepting that this was a first offence—but not without consequences that will sting.
The penalty: banned from this case—and even the gallery
The order handed down bars the lawyer from appearing in this particular case or attending the court when it is being heard in future. His phone was returned after the directive, but his access to the case was not.
Who is the British suspect at the centre of it all?
The detainee is Charlotte May Lee, 21, from South London, a former flight attendant who was arrested by Sri Lanka Customs on 13 May. Authorities allege she attempted to bring 46.6 kilograms of “Kush”—a cannabis-type substance—through the airport, a haul customs officials say is the largest ever seized there. Lee has denied knowledge of the drugs, claiming someone else may have placed the packages in her luggage. She has been in custody for over 90 days.
The record haul that raised the temperature
A bust of this scale supercharges everything: security is tighter, scrutiny is harsher, and courtroom patience is thin. With an international suspect, a headline-grabbing quantity, and a case watched by multiple agencies, the optics of a clandestine video call inside court were never going to fly.
Why a video call matters so much
Courts are wary of unsupervised communications with remand prisoners, especially during live proceedings. Beyond etiquette, there are concerns about coaching, interference, or exposing proceedings to audiences outside the courtroom. Even if no harm was intended, appearance alone can erode confidence in due process—hence the swift intervention.
Inside the reprimand—and what it signals to the bar
For young advocates, the message is blunt: courtroom privileges come with bright lines. Phones may be tools, but they are also liabilities if used without clarity and permission. The bench’s approach—stern warning, targeted ban, and no permanent blot (for now)—reads as a teachable moment rather than a career-ender.
What’s next for the case
The Magistrate ordered that Lee remain in remand until 3 September while proceedings continue. Between now and then, expect further motions on evidence handling, chain-of-custody issues, and defence disclosures. The sidelined lawyer will not be part of any of it—by order of the court.
The takeaway
One impulsive move turned a routine custody mention into a cautionary tale. In high-stakes cases, optics are everything: a phone in a bag, a whispered exchange, a live video feed—and suddenly the story isn’t just about a record drug seizure, it’s about courtroom conduct under a microscope.