JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff's action against the defendants is for unlawful detention and malicious prosecution. After a full trial, I allowed the plaintiff's claim for unlawful detention but dismissed his claim for malicious prosecution. Here are the grounds of my judgment.

Trial

[2] The witnesses who testified at the trial were:

The Defendants

[3] The 1st defendant was a senior police officer with the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) at the material time. He served as an Investigating Officer in the Criminal Investigation Unit, Criminal Investigation Department, Royal Malaysian Police Headquarters, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur.

[4] The 2nd defendant was a senior police officer with the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) at the material time. He served as an Investigating Officer at the Criminal Investigation Unit, Criminal Investigation Department, Royal Malaysian Police Headquarters, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur.

[5] The 3rd defendant was a police officer with the rank of Police Superintendent at the material time. He served as the Deputy Chief at the Dang Wangi District Police Headquarters, Jalan Dang Wangi, Kuala Lumpur.

[6] The 4th defendant was the Inspector General of Police at the material time. He was the person responsible for the actions of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants.

[7] The 5th defendant was a Deputy Public Prosecutor at the material time. He was the person responsible for conducting the prosecution against the plaintiff at the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate Court and High Court.

[8] The 6th defendant was a Deputy Public Prosecutor at the material time. He was the person responsible for conducting the prosecution against the plaintiff at the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.

[9] The 7th defendant was the Attorney General of Malaysia at the material time. He was the person responsible for the actions of the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants.

[10] The 8th defendant is the Government of Malaysia. It was the employer of all the other defendants at the material time.

Background Facts

[11] The plaintiff is a politician who was vocal in speaking out about the 1MDB issue. He lodged a police report on 12 December 2014 requesting the police to investigate on the affairs of 1MDB ("Plaintiff's Police Report"). An excerpt of the plaintiff's police report reads:

"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 system meminjam dana mahupun cara perbelanjaan dana yang amat meragukan khususnya membabitkan wang rakyat.

Oleh yang demikian, saya secara sukarela ingin membuat laporan rasmi memohon Polis DiRaja Malaysia untuk menyiasat secara mendalam dan menyeluruh terhadap 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 demi untuk memelihara integrity agar sejumlah wang rakyat yang besar tidak diselewengkan atau tidak disalah urus."

[12] The plaintiff viewed that no action was taken on his police report. He subsequently made trips to several foreign countries to meet with the enforcement agencies there. Namely France, Switzerland, England, Hong Kong and Singapore. He lodged reports in those countries hoping that the authorities there would investigate the matter, since the 1MDB issue involved entities and institutions in those countries.

[13] The plaintiff's action was reported by the media. A complainant by the name of Mohammad Faisal bin Abu Shuaib Khan, who had read the media report about the plaintiff's trips abroad, lodged a police report on 18 September 2015 at 9:45am ("Complainant's Police Report").

[14] On the afternoon of th