Back
2018 MarsdenLR 3958
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
NURUL IZZAH ANWAR – Appellant
Versus
TAN SRI KHALID ABU BAKAR & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: 23NCVC-88-11-2015]
Statements attributing treason are defamatory, and failing to verify facts before publication demonstrates malice, negating defenses of qualified privilege.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The court considered the Defamation Act 1957 in assessing the plaintiff's claims. Facts of the Case: The plaintiff claimed defamation by the defendants, who stated she met with an enemy of the state, causing harm to her reputation.
Findings of Court:
The court found the statements by both defendants defamatory, rejecting defenses of qualified privilege and fair comment.
Issues: The court framed whether the impugned statements were defamatory and if any defenses were applicable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that both defendants' statements met the standard for defamation as they were capable of bearing defamatory meaning, inferring malice from their failure to verify facts before publication.
Result: The first defendant is to pay damages of RM400,000; the second defendant is to pay RM600,000.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of defamation against public figures require substantiation of defamatory implications. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. defamation claims require proof of statement's defamatory nature. (Para 2 , 14) |
| 3. defendants must prove statements were made under qualified privilege. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. impugned statements must be assessed for defamatory content and potential defense arguments. (Para 20 , 21 , 23 , 41 , 44) |
| 5. defenses of qualified privilege and fair comment may fail if express malice is demonstrated. (Para 50 , 51 , 115 , 116) |
[1] This is a claim for defamation by the plaintiff, Nurul Izzah binti Anwar, who is the Member of Parliament for Lembah Pantai and Vice-President of Parti Keadilan Rakyat ("PKR") against the first defendant ("D1"), Tan Sri Khalid bin Abu Bakar, who at the material time was the Inspector General of Police and Dato' Sri Ismail Sabri Yaakob, the second defendant ("D2") who is the Member Parliament of Bera, Minister of Rural and Regional Development and member of the Supreme Council of the United Malays National Organisation ("UMNO") for statements they each made on 22 November 2015 at two separate press conferences in relation to a photograph of the plaintiff and Jacel Kiram during her visit to the Philippines.
[2] At the conclusion of full trial of this suit, after considering all the written and oral evidence presented to this court, I held that the D1's and D2's statements were defamatory of the plaintiff. I also found that the defendants could not avail themselves to either the defence of qualified privilege or the defence of fair comment.
[3] Damages and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
[4] My reasons for the decision are set out in these grounds of judgment.
The Facts
[5] The plaintiff claims that D1's and D2's statements made at two separate press conferences on 22 November 2015 had defamed her. She pleads that the impugned statements had caused grievous harm to her character, honour and reputation and also caused her great distress.
[6] The plaintiff pleads that the defamatory statement made by D1 are the words underlined below. It was made by D1 at a press conference held at the perkarangan masjid Ibu Pejabat Polis, Bukit Aman in conjunction with Majlis Sunathon PDRM 2015:
Perasaan saya sendiri sebagai Ketua Polis Negara, saya amat marah lah ya, kerana seorang Ahli Parlimen Malaysia sanggup bertemu dengan musuh Negara kita yang telah melakukan pembunuhan terhadap... apa nama... Anggota-anggota keselamatan kita.
Mana tahu, samada serangan sebelum ini telah didalangi oleh pihak-pihak dari sini.
Kita akan siasat siapa juga yang terlibat dalam, apa nama, pertemuan dengan musuh negara. Dia orang mesti tahu ya, seorang Ahli Parlimen pulak tu, dia patut tahu bahawa tindakan itu, perbuatannya itu, adalah satu tindakan, perbuatan, yang boleh dianggap sebagai "treason".
Apa pulak pergi jumpa musuh negara yang telah mengorbankan beberapa anggota pegawai polis dan anggota tentera.
[7] During the trial, D1 admitted that he also said at the press conference that the plaintiff can be charged under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ("SOSMA") and s 124L of the Penal Code as reported by the newscaster on Astro Awani and TV1 on 22 November 2015. D1 agreed that the broadcaster's statement in the TV1 news:
Menurut beliau, polis boleh mengambil tindakan terhadap Nurul Izzah di bawah Akta Keselamatan Langkah-Langkah Khas 2012 dan s 124 Kanun Keseksaan...
accurately reported his statement that the police can take action against the plaintiff under SOSMA and s 124 of the Penal Code. D1 clarified that he said that plaintiff can be investigated under s 124L of the Penal Code.
[8] The plaintiff pleads that the defamatory statement made by D2 are the words underlined below. D2 made the statement at a press conference held in Bera, Pahang in conjunction with Majlis Berkhatan Perdana 2015 organised by Pemuda UMNO in Dewan Rakan Muda Bera, Pahang.
Jadi bagi saya, bertemu dengan kumpulan yang mengisytih
