Defamatory statements made by public figures must be substantiated; claims against media must demonstrate responsible journalism.

[1] These three appeals arose out of a single case in the court below:

i. Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-1640-10-2015

ii. Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-1679-10-2015

iii. Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-1742-10-2015

[2] The appellant in the 2nd appeal, Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-1679-10-2015 was the plaintiff who sued four defendants vide High court Civil Suit No 23NCVC-90 September 2011 for damages based on the tort of defamation. His claim was allowed against all the defendants except the 3rd defendant. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has appealed.

[3] The 2nd and 3rd defendants appealed vide the first of the three appeals, that is, Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-1640-10-2015. The 1st defendant too, has appealed and his appeal is the third of the three appeals, that is, Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-1742-10-2015.

[4] We heard and considered both oral and written submissions from all parties together with the records of appeal and made the following decision, unanimously:

i. Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-1742-10-2015 was dismissed with costs; the decision of the High court in respect of the 1st defendant was affirmed;

ii. Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-1640-10-2015 was also dismissed with costs; the decision of the High court in respect of the 2nd and 3rd defendants was affirmed;

iii. Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-1679-10-2015 was allowed with costs. The decision of the High court in respect of the 4th defendant is set aside. The plaintiffs claim was found proved and thereby allowed with an order that the 4th defendant is to pay the plaintiff the sum of RM200,000.00 as general damages together with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of judgment to the date of realisation.

Background Facts

[5] The facts have been well set out by the learned judge in the grounds of judgment. We will only set out what is required for a better appreciation of the issues raised in these appeals. For that purpose, we will address the parties as they were in the first instance.

[6] The plaintiff was, at all material times, and still is, an advocate and solicitor of the High court of Malaya. The 1st defendant was at the material time, a Member of Parliament for the constituency of Padang Serai. The 2nd defendant is a journalist with the 3rd defendant, the proprietor, printer and publisher of one of the national dailies, Utusan Malaysia. The 2nd defendant writes for the "Dalam Negeri" column of Utusan Malaysia. This column covers news which are of public interest and which affect the internal and external relations and security of the country. The 4th defendant is television broadcaster and owner of TV3, a television network.

[7] The plaintiffs case relates to what supposedly happened at a trial before the High court at Shah Alam of four men accused of the murder of a prominent businesswoman in the local cosmetics industry named Sosilawati bt Lawlya, and three of her companions [Sosilawati murder trial]. The plaintiff was the lead counsel for one of the accused.

[8] In the proceedings of the afternoon of 16 August 2011, the plaintiff and another counsel cross-examined two police personnel on allegations of abuse and torture of the accused persons, asking questions on how the police conduct their interrogations and investigations, and on the issue of use of violence. The 4th defendants journalist who was in court at the relevant time and cove