Polygraph test results are not applicable in civil cases and are considered privileged under s 124 of the Evidence Act 1950, alongside requirements for discovery not being met.

(For An Application Under Order 24 Rule 7A Of The Rules Of Court 2012)

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff in the main action had filed a discovery application under O 24 r 7A of the Rules of Court 2012 (' ROC 2012") ("this Application") against the Parties sought to be Discovered (hereinafter "the RMP") to produce a polygraph test result conducted on the Plaintiff on 17 December 2019 at the Royal Malaysian Police Headquarters in Bukit Aman by the Crimes Investigation Department (hereinafter "the Polygraph Test Results"). An affidavit in support of this Application was affirmed by the Plaintiff.

[2] Subsequently, the Defendant filed an affidavit in reply opposing this Application. The Affidavit was affirmed by himself. On the same day, the RMP filed an affidavit in reply affirmed by ASP Mohd Khairul Ridzuan bin Khiruddin, the investigating officer responsible for the criminal investigation pertaining to the Plaintiff's criminal case. This was then responded to in the two affidavits in reply affirmed by the Plaintiff.

[3] As instructed by this Court, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the RMP then filed in their respective written submissions and written replies. This was followed by an oral submission Session before me. Briefly, the following are the parties' submissions regarding this Application.

The Plaintiff's Submissions

[4] The Plaintiff's submissions are premised on 2 key points; Firstly, The Plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that the Defendant has no locus tooppose the application in the view that an order is sought against the RMP and not the Defendant himself.

[5] Secondly, the Plaintiff claims that his request for discovery of the Polygraph Test Results fulfilled the requirements in Billion Prima Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Nutech Company Limited & Anor (Encl 57) 2016 MarsdenLR 2188 ; ; particularly that:

(i) It is relevant to the proceedings as it is a corroborative element to prove the Plaintiff's case of a tort of sexual assault and/or trespass to person.

(ii) It is necessary for the fair disposal of the cause as its early production at this stage ie, before the commencement of trial would facilitate the preparation for the trial and allow for better appreciation of the issues arising out of the suit.

(iii) That the document sought to be discovered is not privileged because it is not specified within the Schedule to s 2A of the Official Secrets Act 1972 .

[6] For the first point, the Plaintiff relied on the interpretation of O 24 r 7A of ROC 2012 in the case decided by the High Court of Singapore in VisionHealthOne Corp Pte Ltd v. HD Holdings Pte Ltd and other (Chan Wai Chuen and anor) [2010] SGHC 78; [2010] 3 97, wherein the Court held that:

[17] The references to "the person against whom the order is made" in 24 r 6(1), "a person who is not a party to the proceedings" in O 24 r 6(2) and the language employed in O 24 r 6(8) (in respect of inspection and production for inspection of the Ordered Documents under O 24 rr 10 and 11 respectively) indicate that an o