I read with astonishment the press report on the Attorney-General's Chambers giving the green light for the police to start investigations into the criminal defamation report lodged by a chief inspector against a lawyer (the murder trial of Xu Jian Huang). My astonishment stems from the sheer ignorance of the AG's Chambers.

Any legal practitioner worth his or her salt would know the trite law that a lawyer conducting litigation is privileged from defamation and that no action - civil or criminal - can be taken against any lawyer in respect of what he or she says in the course of judicial proceedings. The foundation of the privilege rests upon public policy.

The privilege against defamation is not only conferred to lawyer, but is also afforded to a judge, party or witness to a legal proceeding. It is beyond question that no action for defamation may be brought against a judge, a lawyer, party or witness even if the words uttered or written are irrelevant or actuated by malice.

This privilege could be said to be embodied in Section 42(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act which clearly states that a lawyer must uphold the cause of justice without fear and favour. To enable lawyers to uphold such high standards and commitment, immunity from defamation action is a necessity. A lawyer cannot carry out his duty fully and thoroughly if he is plagued with the constant fear of criminal defamation.

If a lawyer could be subjected to investigation and charge for criminal defamation for words or statements uttered in the course of a judicial proceeding, then shouldn't the same principle be applicable to the deputy public prosecutors (DPPs) as well?

Can DPPs seriously claim that they are able to confidently conduct their cases without fear or favour? Would they be able to prosecute alleged criminals without fear of being sued or being charged for criminal defamation if the criminals are acquitted? Would the public have confidence in the DPPs, if they can be easily be intimidated or threatened with potential defamation suits of criminal defamation charges?

Wouldn't the entire criminal justice system be compromised then? What about judges? Shouldn't judges be subjected to the same treatment then? Are they now subject to defamation action for words or statements uttered in the course of presiding over legal proceedings?

The attorney-general's order of investigation is, in truth, a mere smokescreen designed to distract the public from the blatant inadequacies and lack of competency in the investigation by the police and the wanting manner in how the case was prosecuted.

Instead of trying to find excuses and pointing fingers for the not being able to secure a conviction, the attorney-general should be making every effort to investigate why the best and brightest legal minds are not in his chambers besides rectifying the evidential deficiencies in prosecutions.