LAMIN PCA 19 June 1995

I have had the benefit of reading the judgments of my learned brothers, Gopal Sri Ram and Abu Mansor JJCA, and I am in complete agreement with their views and findings in these appeals.

My learned brother, Gopal Sri Ram JCA, has dealt with every aspect of this case with great care. I have nothing more to add, except to say a few words.

For consistency, I shall refer to the parties in these appeals in the order of the case numbers as filed in this court just as in the same way as it is done by my learned brother, Gopal Sri Ram JCA. Accordingly, the third defendant below whose case appears at the top of the list here shall hereafter be referred to as the first appellant, the seventh defendant as the second appellant and so on.

So much has been adversely commented of the trial judge in regard to his conduct of this case by the learned counsel for the first appellant, Encik Karpal Singh, employing such words as unholy haste in the disposal of this case. It has often been said that justice delayed is justice denied. In the instant case, with the speed as it was in the time taken by the learned judge below to set the case for hearing, hearing the evidence and handing down his judgment, for which he should be given the thumbs up, he is now being accused of having denied justice to the four appellants. They were amongst the seven defendants in the court below who were all found equally guilty of libel, and damages were imposed on them, but the other three chose not to appeal and they have not cried foul!.

To delay the disposal of a case is said to deny justice. To dispose of the same in good speed has also resulted in the court being accused of denying justice. In this case, in particular the first appellant did not file his statement of defence and notwithstanding that he summoned his courage to put up the defence of justification in respect of which he need not be heard, as a result of his failure to file his defence, except on mitigation. Having perused the record I do not hesitate to say that no amount of time given to the first appellant will change his position. Having boldly informed the court that his defence would be the defence of justification, I can only conclude that from his own evidence in particular that found in cross-examination, he had no intention of proving his case because he had no evidence to produce. It was of no surprise that he did not file his defence for he could not. As the learned trial judge observed, he did not even apply for extension of time to file his defence. So also the others who did not file their statements of defence did not apply for extensions of time. I am strongly of the view that it is desirable for a case of this nature be set for early trial and to bring it to its finality as early as circumstances permit. Where a persons character is being assailed and the facts are so fresh in everyones mind so that in the course of the proceedings when a witness testifies relating to all the facts in issue, every single grain of the evidence can easily be appreciated and assessed in that almost at a moments notice, everything falls into place that easily, because both the assailed, the assailant and the judge are in every sense very much contemporaneous with the circumstances that are still prevailing as they are being described in the courtroom. The court is in fact in receipt of the best evidence. Justice could not have been better served with the judge making an immediate assessment of the evidence with his findings delivered without delay.

I have no doubt until now that the first appellant is a writer of international repute for he writes on both local and international issues and contributes to both the home and the overseas press. In that light, it cannot be denied that he has at least a quarter of the world as his readers; hence his sphere of influence. I am sure many of us must have read his writings before th