The court determined liability and punitive damages amidst police misconduct, emphasizing the connection between employees' wrongful acts and their employment responsibilities.

Introduction

[1] Before us there were four related appeals, namely:

(i) Civil Appeal No W-01 (NCVC)-W-264-07-2013;

(ii) Civil Appeal No W-01-(NCVC)-W-280-08-2013;

(iii) Civil Appeal No W-01(NCVC)-W-291-08-2013; and

(iv) Civil Appeal No W-02(NCVC)-W-1773-08-2013.

[2] These appeals were heard together since they involved the same parties and similar questions of law considered by the court below. The parties also agreed that we should hear the appeals together.

[3] We will refer to the parties as they were in the High court. In the High court there was only one plaintiff. But he was not just a respondent, he was also the appellant in the fourth appeal.

[4] Initially, the suit was filed against nine named defendants in the court below. However, the suit against the 6th defendant was withdrawn, when the plaintiff filed a "Notis Pemberhentian" dated 12 October 2012. The trial proceeded with the remaining defendants. Accordingly, any reference to the defendants in this judgment shall exclude reference to the 6th defendant.

[5] The appeals emanated from the decision of the learned judge of the High court at Kuala Lumpur, who held that the 1st to 7th defendants had assaulted the plaintiff and the 8th defendant had committed a tort of misfeasance in public office and as such the 9th defendant was variously liable for the acts of the defendants. The 1st to 7th defendants were then police officers at IPD Brickfields, D7 Unit. The 8th defendant was the OCPD in charge of IPD Brickfields at the time the plaintiff was arrested by the 1st to 7th defendants. The 9th defendant was the employer of the 1st to 8th defendants.

[6] The learned judge awarded the plaintiff RM50,000.00 in general damages, RM100,000.00 in aggravated and exemplary damages and RM150,000.00 in punitive damages with interest of 5% per annum from the date of the judgment until final settlement. The court also ordered costs in the sum of RM50,000.00 to be borne jointly and severally by the defendants.

Facts Of The Case

[7] The 1st to 7th defendants had earlier been charged in the Sessions court at Kuala Lumpur with voluntarily causing hurt to the plaintiff to extort a confession, an offence under s 330 of the Penal Code read together with s 34 of the same Code. At the conclusion of the trial, the Sessions court convicted the 1st and 2nd defendants of the offence charged and sentenced them to four years of imprisonment. The 3rd to 7th the defendants were acquitted. On appeal, the orders of conviction and acquittal were affirmed by the High court.

[8] It was common ground that on 23 December 2008, the plaintiff was arrested at Sri Hartamas, Kuala Lumpur by a police team from IPD Brickfields. He was taken to the Brickfields Police Station. Subsequently, the plaintiff was taken to 'Bilik Detektif, D7 Unit' for the interrogation and/or investigation ("soal siasat").

[9] It was the plaintiff's pleaded case that he was assaulted whilst in detention at Bilik Detektif, D7 Unit by the 1st to 7th defendants, as a result of which he sustained injury both bodily and psychologically.

[10] The learned judge found that the 1st to 7th defendants had poured hot water on the plaintiff, blindfolded, kicked, punched and tied his neck to the ceiling fan. The learned judge also found these assaults only stopped when the plaintiff "confessed". The plaintiff suffered scalding burns as diagnosed by SP1, when he examined the plaintiff on 30 December 2008. In arriving at the aforesaid decision, the learned judge had referred to the photographs marked as P7A-H. (See Rekod Rayuan