Back
2013 MarsdenLR 421
HIGH COURT MALAYA ALOR SETAR
MOHD NASIR MUSTAFA – Appellant
Versus
MOHD HANAFIAH HANAFI & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit Nos: 23NCVC-1-3-2012 & 23NCVC-7-9-2012]
A defamation claim requires proof that statements are defamatory, refer to the plaintiff, and are published. Failure to seek the plaintiff's comment is irresponsible journalism, impacting available defenses.
Headnote:(A) Defamation - Elements of defamation - In order to establish a defamation claim, the plaintiff must prove that the statements made were defamatory, referred to the plaintiff, and were published to a third party. - Defamation occurred through statements portraying the plaintiff as irresponsible and incapable of fulfilling duties as an elected representative. (Paras 5, 10, 11)
(B) Evidence - The statements made by the defendants were broadcasted without seeking the plaintiff's comment, which constitutes irresponsible journalism and disallows the defence of qualified privilege. (Paras 21, 23)
(C) Damages - The court awarded RM120,000 in damages for defamation, taking into account the plaintiff's position and the wide audience of the broadcast, with a breakdown of liability. (Paras 29, 32)
Key Points: - A defamation claim requires proof that the statements are defamatory, refer to the plaintiff, and are published to a third party (!) . - Statements must be shown to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, or ridicule (!) . - The plaintiff must demonstrate that the statements referred to them, such as describing an individual as an irresponsible or inefficient elected representative (!) . - Responsible journalism requires verifying facts, considering the seriousness of the allegation, and providing an opportunity for the plaintiff to respond (!) (!) . - Fair comment defence fails when comments are not based on proved facts that a fair-minded person could honestly make (!) . - Qualified privilege is unavailable when responsible journalism standards are not met, such as failing to seek the plaintiff’s comment (!) (!) . - Damages are assessed based on the plaintiff’s position, the nature and extent of publication, and the absence of retraction or apology (!) . - General damages may be awarded as a presumed consequence of the defamatory act, with the amount depending on the specific facts and circumstances (!) (!) . - Conduct must be considered when determining the amount of damages, including the standing and conduct of both the claimant and the defendants (!) .
What are the elements required to prove a defamation claim?
What steps must be taken to ensure responsible journalism when reporting on public officials?
What factors does the court consider when awarding damages in a defamation case?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim involves alleged defamatory statements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. statements deemed to convey irresponsibility and inefficiency. (Para 4) |
| 3. establishment of defamation requires specific criteria. (Para 5 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. defendants' admissions regarding the statements impact claim. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 5. chronology of events related to road repair. (Para 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 6. discussion on public interest and responsible journalism. (Para 16 , 22 , 24) |
| 7. publication necessity of responsible journalism is emphasized. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 8. criteria for qualified privilege in defamation. (Para 23) |
| 9. damages for defamation require proof of reputation effects. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 10. assessment of damages and implications. (Para 29) |
| 11. conclusion on plaintiff's award and claims. (Para 30 , 31) |
[1] On 18 December 2011 at 9.00pm there was a broadcast of a television programme called "Rancangan Titik Sentuhan" (programme) over RTM1 which allegedly contained statements defamatory of plaintiff. This is plaintiff's claim for defamation against D3 and D4 in Civil Suit 23NCVC-1-3-2012 and D1 and D2 in civil suit 23NCVC-7-9-2012. On 10-09-2012 both civil suits were consolidated for hearing. The plaintiff is a state assemblyman for Kubang Rotan constituency in Kedah. D1 and D2 are individuals who uttered the defamatory statements which were then broadcast on the programme along with other statements made by the reporter on location, one Daud Abdullah. D3 is the producer of the programme and D4 the director general of Jabatan Penyiaran Malaysia.
[2] The alleged defamatory statements (statements) are set out in paras 7 and 8 of the statement of claim as against D3 and D4:
"Defendan pertama telah mengeluarkan kata-kata:
"Wakil rakyat sini ni hat baru ni Nasir kira eh tak pernah turun lagilah. Adapun Ahli Parlimen jauh sekali. Tak pernahlah datang. Pasai tu kita tang-tang rupa pun kami tak pernah tengok lagu mana dia. Kami duduk kawasan ni memang kecewalah sangat-sangat. Pasai pa, kawasan lain kami tengok pembangunan naik taraf semua. Kawasan sini pasai pa ketinggalan macam kami ni anak tiri saja."
Defendan kedua telah mengeluarkan kata-kata:
"Saya ada maklum kepada kerajaan negeri iaitu YB Nasir. Dia pun datang berjumpa saya. Dia kata jalan ni bawah tangan MADA. Dia kata, peruntukan pun kena daripada kerajaan pusat. Itu ja lah yang dijawabnya. Lepas tu, saya ada mesej dan telefon kepada dia tapi sampai sekarang pun tiada jawapan."
Melalui ulasan pengacara siaran Titik Sentuhan
"Mereka mendakwa telah menjadi mangsa konspirasi politik kerana wakil rakyat yang diamanahkan menjadi wadah penyelesaian langsung tidak pernah menjenguk."
Bukan itu jawapan yang mereka inginkan malah mereka memerlukan usaha dan tindakan biar pun masalah jalan ini tak sebesar mana namun dakwa penduduk apa yang dilaungkan oleh kerajaan pakatan rakyat "KEDAH SEJAHTERA" hanya ungkapan semata."
"Apabila jalan sedia ada tak terurus dan dinaiktaraf bukan sahaja mengundang kemalangan malah mengundang kemarahan rakyat yang terlibat."
"Walaupun jalan ni tak sejauh mana tapi kepentingannya yang merupakan keperluan. Penduduk mendakwa bagi meneruskan kelangsungan hidup, yang susah perlu dibantu walaupun berlainan fahaman politik. Itulah sebaik-baiknya."
"Tak sampai 3 bulan kami menerima jawapan cadangan yang diberikan daripada pihak MADA. Kini penduduk di Kampung Hilir, Teluk Talipon, Kubang Rotan, Kuala Kedah telah mendapat jawapan sebenar. Kami turut teruja dengan tindakan segera pihak ICU Kota Setar, Jabatan Perdana Menteri melalui MADA dengan janji dan tindakan yang telah dilaksanakan.""
[3] As against D1 and D2 they are set out in para 4 of the statement of claim and are identical to the portion set out above beginning with "defendan pertama telah mengeluarkan kata-kata" and "defendan kedua telah mengeluarkan kata-kata".
[4] Plaintiff states in para 10 of 23NCVC-1-3-2012 and para 6 of 23NCVC-7-9- 2012 the statements in their natural and ordinary meaning mean the following:
"
