Defendant in a libel case must prove the truth of defamatory statements; failure to provide substantiation results in liability and substantial damages awarded to the plaintiff.

Headnote:(A) Defamation Act 1957 - Plaintiff claims for libel, seeking damages and injunctions - Statements published by the defendant accused the plaintiff of serious offences, including rape and misconduct, causing reputational harm. (Paras 1, 12, 39)

(B) Defamation - Essentials to prove: defamatory words, reference to plaintiff, publication - Defendant's defence of justification failed; he could not substantiate claims. (Paras 10, 38)

(C) Damages - Each libel case unique; courts assess based on gravity, extent of publication, absence of apology - Awarded RM 300,000 in compensatory, aggravated, exemplary damages for serious allegations made without verification. (Paras 39, 40, 72)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a politician and lawyer, sued a blogger for publishing false claims linking him to a rape case involving a maid, which was prominently displayed on the defendant’s blog. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 9)

Findings of Court:
Plaintiff met necessary conditions to succeed in defamation action, while defendant failed to prove articles true, committing a reckless act in publishing without prior verification. (Paras 10, 64, 69)

Issues: Whether the statements published were defamatory, whether the defendant could substantiate the defence of justification, and the appropriate damages to be awarded for such serious allegations. (Paras 11, 38, 40)

Ratio Decidendi: To succeed in a defamation claim, a plaintiff must prove that words published were defamatory, referred to them, and were indeed published; the defendant bears the burden to prove any defence like justification. (Paras 10, 23)

Result: Plaintiff awarded RM 300,000 damages, along with an injunction against further publication and RM100,000 for costs.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's libel claims and monetary requests (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. allegations made in the blog and their implications (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. requirements for proving defamation (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. defendant's justification and evidence (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19)
5. assessment of evidence to support truth. (Para 17)
6. court's assessment of evidence and its admissibility (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. implications of embellished journalism in defamation (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
8. weight of second-hand reports in defamation cases (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
9. recklessness in publication noted. (Para 32 , 33)
10. insufficient evidence for justification defense. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
11. defendant fails to prove justification. (Para 37)
12. assessment of damages in defamation cases. (Para 38)
13. assessment of damages and unique factors in defamation (Para 39 , 40)

[1] The plaintiff's cause of action against the defendant is based on libel and that the plaintiff is claiming for general, special, aggravated and punitive damages and interest. The plaintiff also prays for mandatory and prohibitory injunction compelling the defendant or his agents to remove the libelous words or words to that effect from his blog site and also to restrain the defendant or his agents from further publishing or caused to be published the said libelous words in his blog.

Background Facts

[2] The plaintiff is a senior politician who is renowned locally and internationally. He is a qualified lawyer and currently is a Member of Parliament of Jelebu, Negeri Sembilan from the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) which is the backbone of the ruling coalition of the Barisan Nasional (BN). He holds or has held in the Federal and national level in Malaysia spanning over a period of 30 years under five Prime Ministers of Malaysia. He has served as Cabinet Minister under the various portfolios as stated in para 1 of the Statement of Claim.

[3] The defendant is a blogger and a Committee member of the Youth wing of a political party known as the Parti Keadilan Rakyat for the 2007 to 2010 session, who has set up a blog located on the World Wide Website under the title "Sharpshooter" (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant's blog").

[4] It is not disputed that the defendant's blog is accessible to the public at large and the users of the World Wide Website by means of internet connection at the following uniform resource locator addressed at http://sharpshooterblogger. blogspot.com/.

[5] On or about 28 December 2010, the defendant caused to be published in the defendant's blog at http://sharpshooterblogger.blogspot.com/, an article under the heading "Hei Pak Menteri... mana mau lari... " with the photograph of the plaintiff prominently displayed at the top left hand corner of the same containing the following words which the plaintiff claims to be false and/or malicious and defamatory of the plaintiff:

(a) "Hei Pak Menteri... mana mahu lari...

(b) Kisah seorang pembantu rumah Indonesia dirogol oleh majikannya yang merupakan seorang menteri bermula apabila sebuah badan kebajikan dan hak asasi manusia, Migrant Care, menerima sepucuk surat aduan daripada adik mangsa.

(c) Surat tanpa tarikh yang ditaip dengan mesin taip biasa itu mendakwa kakaknya yang bernama Robengah telah diperkosa oleh seorang Menteri Kerajaan Malaysia beberapa kali.

(d) "Kakak saya telah diperkosa oleh majikannya Pak Menteri beberapa kali. Hingga satu hari tanggal 19 February 2007, kuasa Allah perbuatan kejinya telah terlihat oleh Datin isterinya yang sangat baik melayan semua pembantu rumah. Datin telah hantar kakak saya pulang ke Indonesia keesokannya, tanggal 20 February 2007, " cerita adik mangsa kepada badan yang menjaga kebajikan pekerja Indonesia yang bekerja di luar negeri itu.

(e) "Tolong kami Pak, Bersihkan kehormatan wanita Indonesia yang mencari rezeki buat anak-anak yang sekolah. Apakah memperkosa pembantu rumah pekerja asing yang tak bisa baca dan tak bisa tulis, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 MarsdenLR 1231

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPURDATUK SERI UTAMA DR RAIS YATIM – AppellantVersusAMIZUDIN AHMAT – Respondent[Civil Sivil No: S-23NCVC-5-2011]

Defendant in a libel case must prove the truth of defamatory statements; failure to provide substantiation results in liability and substantial damages awarded to the plaintiff.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
DATUK SERI UTAMA DR RAIS YATIM – Appellant
Versus
AMIZUDIN AHMAT – Respondent
[Civil Sivil No: S-23NCVC-5-2011]