Disclosing a police report can open one to defamation suit, says lawyer

A police report is akin to statement made in the legislature which enjoys absolute immunity but that protection is lost when the same statement is repeated outside the house, says Sri Ram.

Lawyer Gopal Sri Ram is appearing for a former driver who filed a defamation suit against his employer. (Bernama pic)

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court was told today that a person who lodges a police report but discloses its contents to a third party runs the risk of facing a defamation suit.

Lawyer Gopal Sri Ram said absolute privilege has been extended to protect a statement contained in a police report made under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, based on public policy consideration.

“The protection should not be given any wider meaning than is absolutely necessary in the interests of the administration of justice,” he said

Sri Ram said a police report was akin to a statement made in the legislature which enjoyed absolute immunity.

“That protection is lost when the same statement is repeated outside the house,” he said in his submission before a five-member bench led by Justice Ahmad Maarop.

Sri Ram is appearing for the former driver of actress Zahida Mohamed Rafik who had filed a defamation suit against his employer.

The actress had made a report on Feb 29, 2012, claiming her former employee, Noor Azman Azemi, had stolen about RM200,000

Zahida is said to have repeated its contents to a Harian Metro reporter, resulting in a defamation suit by Azman.

He filed the suit against Zahida in 2013 over an article titled “Zahida Rafik Terkedu”, which gave the impression to the public that he was a thief, a person who does not have a good reputation and with no morals.

On Feb 26, 2015, High Court Judge Hue Siew Kheng ordered Zahida to pay Azman RM150,000 in damages for defamation and RM40,000 in costs.

Hue said the former driver had proven all the ingredients of defamation on the balance of probability.

The trial judge also dismissed Zahida’s counter-claim for the return of the RM200,000.

On May 16 last year, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court ruling and instead allowed a counter-claim by Zahida that Azman return the money to her.

In a written judgment, delivered by Justice Hasnah Mohamed Hashim, the bench held merely repeating a police report to a third party for publication cannot amount to defamation.

Hasnah said the report was an absolute privilege available to Zahida.

“The evidence adduced plainly shows that the impugned words in the article (Harian Metro report) were in fact nothing more than a regurgitation of the words in the police report,” she said in the judgment.

Today in the Federal Court, lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said since Zahida’s defence of justification was a complete defence, the appeal was academic.

Shafee said the ultimate decision of the appellate court could not be interfered with because justification is a “complete defence to the tort of defamation”.

Zahida had relied on the defence of justification, qualified privilege and absolute privilege to fend off the defamation suit by Azman.

Shafee said the defence of justification in the form of the police report would reveal Azman had absconded with RM200,000 which Zahida had entrusted him to deposit into her bank account.

“The appellant’s defamation suit cannot succeed nor can he possibly defend the respondent’s (Zahida) counter-suit,” he said, adding that the appeal was academic.

The court has reserved judgment. - FMT