JUDGMENT

Lamin Mohd. Yunus J:

This is an appeal to the Judge-in-chambers on the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar dismissing the defendants/appellants' applicationunder O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of the High 1980 to have the plaintiff/respondent's statement of claim struck out and his action dismissed.

In his statement of claim the plaintiff/respondent alleges that in or about late 1980 the defendants/appellants wrongfully procured the police to arrest the plaintiff/respondent and take him into custody on the ground that, as asserted by the defendants/appellants then, the plaintiff was a member of a gang which was terrorising and intimidating the people at Cheroh Estate, Raub, Pahang and committing unlawful and violent acts. Acting upon the said complaints the plaintiff/respondent was arrested and detained by the police on 17 March 1981 and was only released on 14 May 1983 subject to restricted conditions until 14 May 1984. The said detention and restriction orders were made purportedly under the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crimes) Ordinance No. 5 of 1969. The plaintiff/respondent alleges that the complaints by the defendants/appellants were made out of spite and malice towards the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff/respondent therefore claims that in the premises the defendants/appellants have caused the plaintiff/respondent to be wrongfully imprisoned and deprived of his liberty for a period of 3 years 1 month and 27 days and as a result he has suffered severe shock and mental anguish.

In the alternative the plaintiff/respondent alleges that the defendants/appellants in or about 1980 wrongfully and maliciously conspired and combined among themselves to cause injury to the plaintiff/respondent and accordingly in his statement of claim the plaintiff/respondent spells out the overt acts of conspiracy on the part of the defendants/appellants. The learned Counsel for the defendants/appellants argued that the pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and cited the case of Marrinan v. Vibart & Anor . [1962] 3 All ER 380. The plaintiff in this case was formerly a barrister and was disbarred on 2 July 1957. He brought this action claiming damages for conspiracy against the defendants who were police officers attached to the Crimes Investigation Department of New Scotland Yard. In his statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that between 2 July 1956 and 29 July 1957 the defendants conspired together with another person to injure the plaintiff and his reputation and standing as a barrister by making false and defamatory statements against him. Allegedly some of the statements were made to the Director of Public Prosecution and used as evidence in a criminal trial of Blythe v. Rossi and some in the nature of sworn evidence by the defendants before the same Criminal Court at the trial of the said same accused. Also some of the statement referred to were made at an inquiry concerning the plaintiff before the Masters of the Bench of his Inn. The plaintiff failed in his action and if I may cite the words of Lord Esher as appearing in the judgment of Seller LJ at p. 383:

It is true that, in respect of statements made in the course of proceedings before a Court of justice, whether by Judge, or Counsel, or witnesses, there is an absolute immunity from liability to an action. The ground of that rule is public policy. It is applicable to all kinds of Courts of justice ...

Similarly in the case of Evans v. London Hospital Medical College & Ors. [1981] 1 All ER 715, the rule of absolute immunity was applied. In this case the statements were in the nature of a post-mortem report made by a pathologist and two toxicologists from the London Hospital Medical College and submitted to the Director of Public Prosecution and as a result of which the plaintiff was charged with the murder of her infant son. However at the trial the prosecution offered no evidence and the plaintiff was acquitted. The plaintiff brought