SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 346

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
KHAIRUDDIN ABU HASSAN – Appellant
Versus
WAN AEDIL WAN ABDULLAH & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: W-01(NCvC)(W)-692-09/2022 & W-01(NCvC)(W)-713-09/2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla,Nurul Huda Razali ,Respondent Advocate: SFC Nur Edziani Roleb,SFC Siti Syakimah Ibrahim,FC Mohd Ashraf Abd Hamid

Lawful detention requires credible information; absence of reasonable cause negates malicious prosecution claims.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 23(1)(a) - Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 - Sections 4(1), 4(2), and 4(5) - Penal Code - Sections 124C, 124K, and 124L - Claims for unlawful detention and malicious prosecution - Plaintiff's claim for unlawful detention allowed with damages of RM300,000; claim for malicious prosecution dismissed - Court found no reasonable cause for arrests under the Penal Code and SOSMA, emphasizing the necessity of credible information for lawful detention. (Paras 12, 41, 57, 58, 70, 96)

(B) Malicious Prosecution - Elements required include setting the law in motion, termination in favor of the plaintiff, absence of reasonable and probable cause, and malice - Court found three elements proved but not malice, as the prosecution was not driven by improper motives. (Paras 24, 30, 71, 90)

(C) Damages - General damages for unlawful detention awarded as a lump sum, with no awards for malicious prosecution, exemplary, aggravated, or special damages due to lack of evidence. (Paras 34, 96, 104)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff was arrested twice in 2015, first under the Penal Code and then under SOSMA, following his police report regarding 1MDB. The High Court found both arrests unlawful due to lack of credible evidence.

Findings of Court:
The Plaintiff's claims for unlawful detention were substantiated, while the malicious prosecution claim failed due to insufficient evidence of malice.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the arrests and the elements of malicious prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that lawful detention requires credible information, and the absence of reasonable cause negates malicious prosecution claims.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

See Mee Chun JCA:

Introduction

[1] There are two appeals being heard together, appeal 692 and appeal 713. All references to enclosures are to appeal 692 except where indicated otherwise. Parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court (HC).

[2] The Plaintiff had filed a claim against the Defendants for unlawful detention and malicious prosecution. The claim for malicious prosecution was dismissed while the claim for unlawful detention was allowed with general damages of RM300,000.00. The claim for special, exemplary and aggravated damages were also dismissed.

[3] Appeal 692 is the Plaintiff's appeal against that part of the dismissal of its claim for malicious prosecution and in relation to damages.

[4] Appeal 713 is the Defendants' appeal against the decision of the HC in allowing the claim for unlawful detention and the award of RM300,000.00 as general damages.

Parties

[5] The Plaintiff is a private individual who lodged a police report dated 12 December 2014 which set in motion his arrest and detention thereby leading to the present suit.

[6] D1 to D3 are senior police officers. D4 was the Inspector General of Police and the person responsible for the actions of D1 to D3. D5 is a Deputy Public Prosecutor who conducted the prosecution of the Plaintiff at the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate Court while D6, also a Deputy Public Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution of the Plaintiff at the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court . D7 was the Attorney General and the person responsible for the actions of the D4 to D6. D8 is the Government of Malaysia and the employer of all the other Defendants.

Background Facts

[7] It all began on 12 December 2014 when the Plaintiff lodged a police report, the relevant part of which in encl 5/49 is as follows:

"Setelah membaca, meneliti dan mengkaji pelbagai laporan-laporan atau pendedahan mengenai kepincangan pentadbiran kewangan syarikat 1MDB melalui artikel-artikel yang ditulis di dalam akhbar-akhbar tempatan, luar negara serta blog-blog telah membuktikan secara jelas berbagai kelemahan di dalam sistem meminjam dana mahupun cara perbelanjaan dana yang amat meragukan khususnya membabitkan wang rakyat.

Oleh yang demikian, saya secara sukarela ingin membuat laporan rasmi memohon pihak Polis Diraja Malaysia untuk menyiasat secara mendalam dan menyeluruh terhadap keseluruhan kakitangan pentadbiran, para pegawai, Ahli-ahli Lembaga Pengarah serta juga keseluruhan personaliti ataupun mana-mana syarikat yang terbabit dengan urus niaga meragukan dengan 1MDB.

Polis Diraja Malaysia mestilah menyiasat secara telus, adil dan saksama demi untuk memelihara Integriti agar jumlah wang rakyat yang besar tidak diselewengkan atau tidak disalah urus."

The police report was a request for the police to investigate into the affairs of 1MDB. Subsequently, the Plaintiff made a few trips abroad to hand over a copy of his police report to the relevant agencies.

[8] One Mohammad Faisal bin Abu Suaib Khan (Faisal) lodged a police report dated 18 September 2015 (Complainant police report). From the evidence, this was the police report which led to the Plaintiff's arrest.

[9] The chronology of events relating to the Plaintiff's arrest and detention are set out in the table below, which we take the liberty of reproducing from the HC Judge's Grounds of Judgment:

No.

Date

Event

1.12 December 2014P lodged his P Police Report at The Dang Wangi police station
2.1 July 2015P and his personal lawyer, Matthias Chang Wen Chieh ("Matthias") went to Paris, France and handed over a copy of the P Police Report to Mr Regis Ponnela, Chief Police Officer for the Criminal Division of Economics & Finance.
3.18 August 2015P and Matthias went to Switzerland and handed over a copy of the P Police Report to the office of the Attorney General of Switzerland.
4.19 August 2015P and Matthias went to England and handed over a copy of the P Police Report to the Metropolitan Police Station, Charling Cross, United Kingdom.
5.2015P also went to Hong Kong and Sin



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top