Introduction

[1]This appeal raises issues concerning certain important aspects of the law of defamation . The nucleus of the arguments advanced in the appeal concern the defence of reportage in the context of qualified privilege and the Reynolds defence of responsible journalism (see Reynolds v Times Newspaper Ltd and Others [2001] 2 AC 127

[2]This appeal arises from the reversal by the Court of Appeal on 11 January 2018 of the decision of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur delivered on 10 June 2016 . After a full trial, the High Court had dismissed the respondent’s claim for defamation and malicious falsehood in relation to the publication of three articles and two videos by the appellants. The ar tic les and videos pertain to news reports of the gold-mining activities of the respondent and the risk to the health, well-being and safety of the neighbouring Bukit Koman community as a whole.

[3]This appeal was then filed pursuant to the granting of leave of the following questions:

“

1.Whether reportage is in law a separate defence from qualified privilege or the Reynolds defence of responsible journalism and whether it is to be treated as being mutually exclusive?

2.Whether the defe