NST loses appeal on RM150k defamation suit
Hafiz YatimPublished: Sep 17, 2014 2:00 PM | Updated: Sep 17, 2014 3:01 PM
The High Court decision ordering English daily New Straits Times to pay RM150,000 for defaming lawyer Rosli Dahlan was unanimously upheld by the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya today.
In its application, the NST appealed against the order of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur for it to pay the sum to the lawyer.
UPDATED 2.55PM
Court of Appeal orders it to pay the sum for defaming Rosli Dahlan.
The High Court decision ordering English daily New Straits Times to pay RM150,000 for defaming lawyer Rosli Dahlan was unanimously upheld by the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya today.
In its application, the NST appealed against the order of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur for it to pay the sum to the lawyer.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), which was named as the second defendants in the suit filed by Rosli and was ordered to pay a similar amount, did not appeal the decision.
Court of Appeal judge Linton Albert, who chaired the three-member panel, said the decision was unanimous.
He also ordered NST to pay RM20,000 costs.
The other two judges were Justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer and Justice P Nalini.
Judicial commissioner Siti Khadijah Hasan Badjenid had ordered the NST and MACC to pay RM150,000 for defamation involving Rosli's arrest and the charge linking him to the “RM27 million cop caper”.
During the trial, a reporter from the paper had testified that he received information from the MACC and the anti-graft body also put up the news report on its website.
The Court of Appeal judges asked why didn’t the MACC appeal if they did not do any wrong to Rosli, and if the story was published on its website was true.
The appellate judges also questioned the media’s lack of remorse in appealing this matter when the MACC did not.
Justice Hamid Sultan (left) at one point of the hearing of this appeal asked the NST counsel, Harijinder Kaur, why NST had started and popularised the RM27 million story when the charge against Rosli and former Commercial Crime Investigation Department director Ramli Yusuff, who was also implicated and charged, did not mention any amount at all.
Hence, the judge said there was no basis for stating that the amount involved was RM27 million, and that the story was false and indicated malice on the part of the report.
“News cannot add on untrue stories, embellish it to be a fairy tale. Only real news enjoy any privilege,” he said.
Justice Linton also said the sting of the defamation is that you stated he hid RM27 million or that he was charged for RM27million, when that was totally untrue.
Rosli was represented by Chethan Jethwani and Parvinder Kaur.
Rosli had taken legal action against The Star and Utusan Malaysia as well and both dailies have apologised for defaming him in 2007.
Rosli was acquitted by the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur in 2010 on a charge of non-disclosure of his assets, which the prosecution and the then-Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) claimed were linked to Ramli, resulting in this suit.
In its application, the NST appealed against the order of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur for it to pay the sum to the lawyer.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), which was named as the second defendants in the suit filed by Rosli and was ordered to pay a similar amount, did not appeal the decision.
Court of Appeal judge Linton Albert, who chaired the three-member panel, said the decision was unanimous.
He also ordered NST to pay RM20,000 costs.
The other two judges were Justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer and Justice P Nalini.
Judicial commissioner Siti Khadijah Hasan Badjenid had ordered the NST and MACC to pay RM150,000 for defamation involving Rosli's arrest and the charge linking him to the “RM27 million cop caper”.
During the trial, a reporter from the paper had testified that he received information from the MACC and the anti-graft body also put up the news report on its website.
The Court of Appeal judges asked why didn’t the MACC appeal if they did not do any wrong to Rosli, and if the story was published on its website was true.
The appellate judges also questioned the media’s lack of remorse in appealing this matter when the MACC did not.
Justice Hamid Sultan (left) at one point of the hearing of this appeal asked the NST counsel, Harijinder Kaur, why NST had started and popularised the RM27 million story when the charge against Rosli and former Commercial Crime Investigation Department director Ramli Yusuff, who was also implicated and charged, did not mention any amount at all.Hence, the judge said there was no basis for stating that the amount involved was RM27 million, and that the story was false and indicated malice on the part of the report.
“News cannot add on untrue stories, embellish it to be a fairy tale. Only real news enjoy any privilege,” he said.
Justice Linton also said the sting of the defamation is that you stated he hid RM27 million or that he was charged for RM27million, when that was totally untrue.
Rosli was represented by Chethan Jethwani and Parvinder Kaur.
Rosli had taken legal action against The Star and Utusan Malaysia as well and both dailies have apologised for defaming him in 2007.
Rosli was acquitted by the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur in 2010 on a charge of non-disclosure of his assets, which the prosecution and the then-Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) claimed were linked to Ramli, resulting in this suit.
View Comments0