2020 MarsdenLR 96
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
AHMAD AZHAR OTHMAN – Appellant
Versus
ROZANA MISBUN – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: BA-12B-158-10/2018]
Courts confirmed that victims of domestic violence can pursue civil claims for torts such as battery, emphasizing access to justice and the independence of civil remedies from criminal compounding.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code – Section 260 – Domestic Violence Act – Section 10 – Jurisdiction of civil courts regarding torts of battery and breach of trust – The Court affirmed that s 260 CPC does not bar a victim from suing for damages in tort – The Plaintiff's claims for tort of battery were substantiated and recognized as legitimate by the Court – Jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court in civil matters determined – The Court emphasized the importance of access to justice for victims of domestic violence. (Paras 1, 13, 24, 46, 50)
(B) Damages – Aggravated and General Damages – Awards for domestic violence injuries – The Court upheld the initial damages awarded by the Sessions Court, finding the amounts justifiable and reflecting the severity of the Plaintiff's injuries and humiliation suffered. (Paras 44, 47)
Facts of the case: The appeal involved allegations of domestic violence against the Plaintiff by the Defendant, who is a known public figure. The case outlined multiple incidences of battery and financial coercion, culminating in a civil suit for damages. (Paras 1-4, 5-10)
Findings of Court: The Court determined that the Plaintiff had proven her claims of battery, establishing the mental and physical impact of the Defendant's actions. The Sessions Court’s decisions regarding jurisdiction and damages were affirmed. (Paras 49)
Issues: The main questions addressed included the jurisdiction of civil courts in tort claims against domestic violence and whether previous legal compounding of charges barred civil actions. (Paras 13)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that compounding under s 260 CPC does not compromise a victim's right to seek civil remedy for tort; the Sessions Court retained jurisdiction. Access to justice was emphasized as a constitutional right. (Paras 24, 50)
Result: Appeal by the Defendant dismissed; the Counterclaim struck out. (Paras 49)
(Appeal To High Court Against Sessions Court's Decision After Trial)
A. Introduction
[1] This appeal concerns allegations of wife battering by a famous singer and actor known as "Awie".
[2] A novel question of constitutional importance (Constitutional Question) arises in this case - whether s 260 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC ) [which provides that the compounding of an offence committed by a person (X) against another person (Y)]-
(1) bars Y from filing a civil suit for damages for a tort of battery committed by X against Y; or
(2) does not prevent Y from suing X for the tort of battery because s 260 CPC should be modified pursuant to art 162(6) of the Federal Constitution (FC) as may be necessary to bring s 260 into accord with art 5(1) FC (which provides for Y's fundamental right of access to justice by the institution of Y's suit against X).
[3] I will refer to parties as they are before the Sessions Court (SC).
[4] The plaintiff (Plaintiff) is the wife of the defendant (Defendant).
B. Plaintiff's Case
[5] The Plaintiff claimed as follows, among others:
(1) on 2 June 2014, in the matrimonial home of the Plaintiff and Defendant at no 9, Jalan UB5B, Taman Ukay Bistari, Ukay Perdana, 68000 Ampang (Home), the Defendant had accused the Plaintiff of, among others, stealing the Defendant's money;
(2) the Defendant physically assaulted the Plaintiff at Home (1st Battery) as follows-
(a) the Defendant punched repeatedly the Plaintiff on her nose and this had caused the Plaintiff to fall to the floor;
(b) while the Plaintiff was lying down on the floor, the Defendant kicked and stomped on the left side of the Plaintiff's chest; and
(c) the Defendant had used a monopod to hit the Plaintiff until the monopod broke into three pieces;
(3) the 1st Battery took place in the presence of-
(a) the three children of the Plaintiff and Defendant (Children);
(b) a maid who worked at Home for the Plaintiff and Defendant (Maid); and
(c) the Defendant's personal chauffer (Chauffer);
(4) the Defendant then forcibly took the Plaintiff to the Alliance Bank's branch at Ampang (Alliance Bank) where the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to withdraw all the money in the Plaintiff's bank account with Alliance Bank in a sum of about RM29,000.00 (Sum). The Sum was taken by the Plaintiff;
(5) after going to Alliance Bank, the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to go to the office of Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) at Jalan Tun Razak, Kuala Lumpur, so that the Plaintiff could withdraw all the money in the Plaintiff's "Amanah Saham Bumiputera" account (ASB Account). The Defendant was incensed when he was informed by PNB that the Plaintiff only had RM230.00 in the ASB Account. Hence, the Defendant scolded and hit the Plaintiff on her face and chest at the PNB's reception counter (2nd Battery);
(6) after the Plaintiff and Defendant left PNB and were at a car park, the Defendant hit the Plaintiff again (3rd Battery);
(7) the Defendant took the Plaintiff to a law firm in Pandan Indah and forced the Plaintiff to sign some documents prepared by the Defendant's solicitor, Encik Azwan; and
(8) the Plaintiff sought medical treatment and made police reports against the Defendant.
C. Defendant's Case
[6] The Defendant alleged as follows, among others:
(1) as a successful singer and actor, the Defendant had entrusted a sum of RM500,000.00 (Alleged Sum) to the Plaintiff for the latter to keep the Alleged Sum for-
(a) the future of the Plaintiff, Defendant and Children; and
(b) the Children's education;
(2) the Plaintiff is a homemaker with no source of income;
(3) the Plaintiff had spent the entire Alleged Sum on branded clothes, bags and shoes for her own personal use. As such, the Plaintiff had breached the trust regarding the Alleged Sum (Alleged Breach of Trust); and
(4) the Defendant had lodged a police report against the Plaintiff regarding the Alleged Breach of Trust.
D. Criminal Proceedings
[7] On 7 March 2016 the Defendant was charged in the Ampang Magistrate's Court [C