Arrest requires credible information or reasonable suspicion; absence of reasonable cause alone does not establish malice in malicious prosecution.

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 claims 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 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 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's police report). From the evidence, this was the police report that led to the Plaintiff's arrest.

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

[10] D1 was the police officer who arrested the Plaintiff on 18 September 2015 (the first arrest) for an