Zawawi Salleh JCA

(delivering judgment of the court):

INTRODUCTION

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

(a) Civil Appeal No W-01(NCVC)-W-264–07 of 2013;

(b) Civil Appeal No W-01(NCVC)-W-280–08 of 2013;

(c) Civil Appeal No W-01(NCVC)-W-291–08 of 2013; and

(d) Civil Appeal No W-02(NCVC)-W-1773–08 of 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 the nine named defendants in the court below. However, the suit against the sixth defendant was withdrawn, when the plaintiff filed a ‘Notis Pemberhentian’ dated 12 October 2012.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 sixth defendant.

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

[6]The learned judge awarded the plaintiff RM50,000 in general damages, RM100,000 in aggravated and exemplary damages and RM150,000 in punitive damages with interest of 5%pa from the date of the judgment until final settlement. The court also ordered costs in the sum of RM50,000 to be borne jointly and severally by the defendants.

FACTS OF THE CASE

[7]The first to seventh 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 330Penal Codes 34

[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 first to seventh defendants, as a result of which he sustained injury both bodily and psychologically.

[10]The learned judge found that the first to seventh 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 Jld 2(1) — Bahagian C at pp 184–187 and 311–314).

[11]The plaintiff was later taken for treatment whilst still under police custody by the second defendant. He was not taken to a government hospital for treatment. The learned judge’s comment was as follows (at pp 7–8 of RTRT):

He was later taken while still under Police Custody for treatment by inter alia the 2nd Defendant and SP5 to a clinic in Balakong where the Doctor was known not to ask questions instead of a Government doctor at a Clinic Government Hospital.

[12]The learned judge had considered the evidence of Associate Professor Dr Marhani Midin (‘SP7’) who was at that time and still is a consultant psychiatrist from Pusat Per