[ad_1]
A police report appears to be a statement made to the legislature that enjoys absolute immunity, but this protection disappears when the same statement is repeated outside the home, says Sri Ram.
Lawyer Gopal Sri Ram appears for a former driver who sued for defamation against his employer. (Photo Bernama)
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has been informed today that a person who submits a police report but discloses its contents to a third party is likely to be the subject of a court order. a defamation suit.
Lawyer Gopal Sri Ram was extended to protect a statement contained in a police report prepared under Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for reasons of public policy.
"The protection should not have a broader scope than necessary in the interest of Sri Ram said that a police report was related to a statement made to the legislature that enjoyed
"This protection is lost when the same statement is repeated outside the house," he said in his submission to a five-member bench led by Judge Ahmad Maarop.
Sri Ram appears for former driver of the actress Zahida Mohamed Rafik who had filed a libel suit against his employer.
The actress had made a report on February 29, 2012, claiming that his former employee, Noor Azman Azemi, had stolen about RM 200,000
Zahida allegedly told a Harian Metro reporter about what he said
He sued Zahida in 2013 about an article titled "Zahida Rafik Terkedu", who gave the impression to the public that he was a thief, a person who did not have a good reputation and
On February 26, 2015, the judge of the High Hue court Siew Kheng ordered Zahida to pay $ 150,000 to Azman in damages for defamation and RMF 40,000 in costs.
Hue stated that the former driver had proved all the ingredients
The trial judge also dismissed Zahida's counterclaim for the refund of RM 200,000.
On May 16 of last year, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the High Court and allowed Zahida's counterclaim that Azman returned the money to him. 19659004] In a written judgment delivered by Judge Hasnah Mohamed Hashim, the court that has simply repeated a police report to a third party for publication can not be equated with defamation.
Hasnah stated that the report was an absolute privilege available to Zahida. ] "The evidence produced clearly shows that the words challenged in the article (Harian Metro Report) were in fact nothing more than a regurgitation of words in the police report," he said. she says in the judgment.
Lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said that Zahida's defense of justification being a complete defense, the appeal was academic.
Shafee said that the final decision of the court of appeal could not be interfered with because the justification is a complete defense to the offense of defamation.
Zahida was founded on the defense of justification, qualified privilege and absolute privilege to repel the defamation suit brought by Azman
. A rationale in the form of a police report would reveal that Azman had fled with RM200,000 that Zahida had entrusted to him to deposit in his bank account.
"The defamation lawsuit of the appellant can not succeed and probably can not defend the respondent (Zahida) counter-lawsuit," he said, adding that the appeal was academic.
The court reserved its judgment.
Repeating the police report for publication is not defamatory, rules court
[ad_2]
Source link
