Nota tort fitnah dan pembelaan in Malay. Defamation and defense. Please do not reupload or misuse for profit. For reading purpose only. Credits belong to the original creator of the slides.

1. FITNAH
6/22/2019 1

2. OBJEKTIF KULIAH
6/22/2019 2
Memberi pemahaman mengenai
jenis-jenis fitnah

3. SUBTOPIK
Definisi
fitnah
Kepentingan
yg dilindungi
Undang-
undang yang
terpakai
Jenis-jenis
fitnah
6/22/2019 3

4. Definisi fitnah
6/22/2019 4
Winfield : publication of a
statement which tends to lower
a person in the estimation of
right-thinking members of
society generally, or which tends
to make them shun or avoid that
person

5. 6/22/2019 5
COLOUR YOUR WORLD CORPORATION V
CANADIAN BROADCAST CORPORATION 156
DLR(4TH) 27
A defamatory statement is one which has the tendency to
injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers
(which tends, that is to say, to lower him in the estimation
of right-thinking members of society generally and in
particular to cause him to be regarded with feelings of
hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem.

6. Kepentingan yg dilindungi
6/22/2019 6
Menjaga nama baik
seseorang

7. Keseimbangan yg ingin dicapai
 Mencari keseimbangan antara
melindungi nama baik seseorang
dgn kebebasan utk bersuara atau
memberi pendapat
 Seseorang boleh memberi pendapat
dgn syarat dia tidak menjejaskan
nama baik seseorang
6/22/2019 7

8. Hak untuk bersuara / melahirkan pendapat
6/22/2019 8
Art. 10(1)(a) Federal Constitution
(1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4) –
(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and
expression
(2) Parliament may by law impose-
(a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of clause (1), such
restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the
interest of the security of the Federation or any part
thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order
or morality and restrictions designed to protect the
privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to
provide against contempt of court, defamation, or
incitement to any offence

9. 6/22/2019 9
Art 10(2)
The exercise of these freedom, since it carries with it duties
and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society, in the interest of national
security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the
protection of rights and freedoms of others….
Art 10(1) European Convention for the protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. The right shall
include the freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority and
regardless of frontiers………….

10. MGG PILLAI V. TAN SRI VINCENT TAN
CHEE YIOUN
[1995] 2 MLJ 493
6/22/2019 10
Lamin PCA : There are such things
as human dignity, respectability and
good character

11. UNDANG-UNDANG YG TERPAKAI
6/22/2019 11
Akta Fitnah 1957 (Akta 286) (AF)
/ Defamation Act 1957

12. Jenis-jenis fitnah
6/22/2019 12
* Libel
- kenyataan yg berbentuk tetap
- boleh dilihat dgn mata spt kenyataan
bertulis, gambar, patung, emel
YOUSSOUPOFF V. METRO-GPLDWYN-MAYER PICTURES LTD
(1934) 50 TLR 581
Sebuah filem menuduh secara salah bhw seorang puteri raja
Russia telah dirogol.
Slesser LJ : Showing of defamatory matter embodied in a film
with a soundtrack was libel.

13. M.G.G PILLAI V. TAN SRI DATO’ VINCENT TAN CHEE
YIOUN & OTHER APPEALS
[1995] 2 CLJ 912
6/22/2019 13
- actionable per se – tidak perlu buktikan
kerosakan
Gopal Sri Ram JCA : Libel is a tort actionable per se, i.e.,
without proof of actual harm. In other words, damage is not an
ingredient of the tort. The law presumes that when a man’s
reputation is assailed, some damage must result.
s.3 AF – perkataan yg dituturkan melalui radio dianggap
sebagai dlm bentuk tetap

14. 6/22/2019 14
* Slander
- dlm bentuk sementara
- tidak tetap spt percakapan
- s.2 AF – perkataan termasuk gambar,
imej visual, gerakan tubuh badan
dan kaedah-kaedah lain utk
menunjukkan maksud
- bukan actionable per se – perlu
buktikan kerosakan sebenar
Libel is addressed to the eye while
slander is addressed to the ear

15. Pengecualian kpd pembuktian
kerosakan dlm slander
6/22/2019 15
1.Kata-kata yg mengatakan seorang
perempuan itu melakukan zina – s.4
AF.
LUK KAI LAM V. SIM AI LENG
[1978] 1 MLJ 214

16. 2. Kata-kata yg bertujuan utk merosakkan
pekerjaan, profesyen, perdagangan atau
perniagaan seseorang – s.5 AF.
6/22/2019 16
Keperluan di bawah s.5:
i. kata2 tersebut bermaksud utk menghina atau
merendahkan plaintif tapi bukan dlm personal capacity;
ii. Kata2 itu merujuk jawatan, profesion, pekerjaan, tred
atau perniagaan plaintif;
iii. Jawatan, profesion, pekerjaan, tred atau perniagaan
dipegang atau dijalankan oleh plaintif pada masa kata2
itu dikeluarkan; dan
iv. Plaintif tidak perlu utk membuktikan kerosakan khas.

17. 6/22/2019 17
JB JEYARATNAM V. GOH CHOK TONG
[1985] 1 MLJ 334
For slander to be actionable per se, the words
must be calculated to disparage the plaintiff
in his office of profit. An office of profit means
that the plaintiff receives monetary
remuneration from holding that office.

18. THIRUCHELVASEGARAM MANICKAVASEGAR V.
MAHADEVI NADCHATIRAM
[2005] CLJ 435
6/22/2019 18
James Foong J. :Since the slander herein involved the plaintiff
in his profession and imputed him to a crime punishable with
a term of imprisonment, there was no necessity for the
plaintiff to tender proof of special damages.
ISMAIL SHAMSUDIN V. ABDUL AZIZ ADNAN
[2007] 8 CLJ 65

19. 3. s.6 - Slander terhadap hak milik, barang-barang atau kepalsuan
berniat jahat yg lain tidak perlu membuktikan kerugian khas jika;
a. jika perkataan2 ke atas mana tindakan itu diasaskan telah
menyebabkan kerugian wang kpd plaintif dan diterbitkan dlm tulisan
atau bentuk tetap; atau
b. jika perkataan2 itu telah menyebabkan kerugian wang
kpd plaintif berkenaan dgn mana2 jawatan, profesyen, pekerjaan,
tred atau perniagaan yg dipegang atau dijalankan oleh
plaintif pd masa penerbitan itu.
6/22/2019 19
i. Cth slander terhadap h/milik yg menyebabkan plaintif mengalami
kerugian kewangan:
A berunding dgn B utk menjual tanahnya dgn harga RM100,000. C
membuat kenyataan mengatakan tanah tersebut diperoleh A secara menipu
adik beradik beliau.
ii. Cth slander terhadap barang yg menyebabkan plaintif mengalami
kerugian kewangan:
A pengilang air buah dlm tin. B membuat kenyataan bahawa air keluaran
kilang A tidak bersih. Akibatnya jualan air buah A merosot.

20. 6/22/2019 20
s.6 menggunakan perkataan ‘kepalsuan
berniat jahat yg lain’ – adakah niat jahat
terpakai kpd slander berhubung dgn hak
milik, barang-barang?
BORNEO POST SDN BHD & ANOR
V. SARAWAK PRESS SDN BHD
[1999] 1 AMR 1030
Niat jahat di pihak defendan perlu dibuktikan.

21. RATUS MESRA SDN BHD V. SHAIK OSMAN
MAJID & ORS
[1999] 3 MLJ 529
6/22/2019 21
RK Nathan J : Elemen-elemen yg perlu
dibuktikan utk tuntutan malicious falsehood :
a. defendan telah menyiarkan kata-kata palsu;
b.ia diterbitkan /disiarkan dgn niat jahat; dan
c. kerosakan khas telah berlaku sebagai akibat
langsung dan semulajadi drp perbuatan
defendan

22. 6/22/2019 22
Dlm tuntutan utk malicious
falsehood, kerosakan
khas/kerosakan sebenar perlu
dibuktikan melainkan ia terjatuh di
bawah s.6 AF

23. 6/22/2019 23
4. Kenyataan yg mengatakan plaintif mengidap penyakit
berjangkit pd masa kenyataan dibuat.
5. Kenyataan yg mengatakan plaintif terlibat dlm perbuatan
jenayah yg boleh dikenakan hukuman ‘corporal’ spt rotan,
kematian atau penjara.
THIRUCHELVASEGARAM MANICKAVASEGAR V. MAHADEVI
NADCHATIRAM
C SIVANATHAN V. ABDULLAH B. DATO’ HJ. ABD. RAHMAN
[1984] 1 MLJ 62
Tuntutan plaintif gagal krn perbuatan yg dituduh ke atasnya
oleh defendan tidak membawa kpd hukuman ‘corporal’.
Plaintif perlu membuktikan kerosakan khas.

24. Elemen-elemen fitnah
6/22/2019 24
1.Kata-kata bercorak fitnah;
2.Kata-kata merujuk pd plaintif; dan
3.Kata-kata itu disiarkan/published.

25. WONG YOKE KONG & ORS V. AZMI M ANSHAR &
ORS
[2003] 6 CLJ 559
6/22/2019 25
Heliliah Yusof J telah merujuk pd buku Carter-Ruck on
Libel and slander : It is stated tt in any action for
defamation whether it be libel or slander, the plaintiff must
prove tt the matter complained of : (i) is defamatory
(defamation); (ii) refers to the plaintiff (identification);
and (iii) has been published to a third person (publication).

26. 1. Kata-kata bercorak fitnah
6/22/2019 26
Sesuatu kenyataan / kata-kata itu bercorak fitnah apabila ia
berkecenderungan utk merendahkan plaintif dlm kalangan
masyarakat yg berfikiran waras (right-thinking society)
SIM V. STRETCH
[1936] 2 ALL ER 1237
Lord Atkin : A statement which tends to lower the claimant
in the estimation of right thinking members of society
generally, and in particular to cause him to be regarded
with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear and
disesteem.

27. LEWIS V. DAILY TELEGRAP
6/22/2019 27
Defendan menyiarkan di muka surat depan akhbar berita
yg bertajuk ‘Inquiry on Firm By City Police’. Akhbar itu
menyebutkan bhw polis sedang membuat siasatan
terhadap sebuah firma yg mana plaintif merupakan
pengerusinya. Plaintif menghujahkan bhw kenyataan itu
dlm maksud biasanya membawa maksud plaintif
melakukan frod atau berlaku tidak jujur. Defendan
mengakui bhw perkataan itu membawa maksud fitnah ttp
mereka hanya melaporkan bhw terdapat siasatan polis.
Lord Devlin : The test to be applied is whether the words
in their ordinary sense defame the complainant : the
fundamental Q – what is the meaning that the words
convey to the ordinary man?

28. 6/22/2019 28
ANSARI ABDULLAH V SHALMON SANAGAN
[2016] 10 MLJ 39
Walaupun fitnah dilakukan di facebook,
plaintif perlu membuktikan kesemua
elemen2 fitnah

29. LAU CHEE KUAN V. CHOW SOONG & ORS
[1955] 21 MLJ 21
6/22/2019 29
Murray-Ansley CJ telah merujuk buku Gatley on
Libel and Slander:
‘Any written or printed words which tend to
lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking
men, or cause him to be shunned or avoided, or
exposed him to hatred, contempt or ridicule,
constitute a libel’.

30. SYED HUSIN ALI V. PERCETAKAN
UTUSAN MELAYU BHD & ANOR
[1973] 2 MLJ 56
6/22/2019 30
Mohamed Azmi J.: Thus the test of defamatory nature of a
statement is its tendency to excite against the plaintiff the adverse
opinion of others, although no one believes the statement to be
true (emphasis added). Another test is : would the words tend to
lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of
society generally? The typical type of defamation is an attack upon
the moral character of the plaintiff attributing crime, dishonesty,
untruthfulness, ingratitude or cruelty.

31. BYRNE V. DEANNE
[1937] 1 KB 818
6/22/2019 31
Selepas polis menyerbu sebuah kelab golf dan merampas
mesin perjudian, terdapat kenyataan di papan notis kelab yg
berbunyi ‘but he who gave the game away may be Bryne in
hell and rue the day’. Plaintif membawa tuntutan terhadap
kelab golf tersebut dgn mengatakan bhw kenyataan tersebut
adalah fitnah
Held : Sungguhpun kenyataan itu berkecenderungan
merendahkan beliau dlm kalangan ahli kelab ttp tidak dlm
kalangan masyarakat yg berfikiran waras krn masyarakat
berfikiran waras akan menyokong perbuatan yg bertujuan utk
menghapuskan jenayah.

32. WONG YOKE KONG & ORS V. AZMI M ANSHAR &
ORS
6/22/2019 32
Isu : i. whether the words that are published were
defamatory
ii. Whether the words were defamatory to the
plaintiffs
Heliliah J : There are therefore two steps involved in
deciding whether or not the alleged offensive sentence
is defamatory or not. The first is to consider what
meaning the words would convey to the ordinary
person. Having established the meaning the next
stage is whether under the circumstances in which the
words were published, the reasonable person would be
likely to understand them in defamatory sense.

33. 6/22/2019 33
Here the defendants have actually
referred to the business of the law firm
and not the political activity of Dato’ Nazri
in the alleged offensive sentence. It may
not be defamatory to say that the lawyer
is less talented than another but it may
be defamatory to impute that the
business practice of a law firm is
discreditable. There is a risk of injury to
the business reputation.

34. AYOB B. SAUD V. TS SAMBANTAHNMURTHI
[1989] 1 MLJ 315
6/22/2019 34
Kenyataan tidak bercorak fitnah
w/pun perbandingan dibuat antara
juru ukur Cina dgn Melayu.

35. SOH CHUAN SENG V. CTOS-EMR SDN BHD
[2004] 5 CLJ 46
6/22/2019 35
UTUSAN MELAYU (MALAYSIA) BHD & ORS V. VTJANTING
HANDICRAFT SDN BHD & ANOR
[2005] 1 CLJ 71
Nik Hashim JCA : On the Q of malicious intent, the law looks at
the tendency and consequences of the publication and if the
defendant has published words which have in fact injured the
plaintiff’s reputation, the defendant must be taken to have
intended the consequences naturally resulting from his act. It is
no defence to show that the defendant did not intent to defame
the plaintiff, if reasonable people would think the language to
be defamatory of the plaintiff.

36. BRE SDN BHD & ORS V. TUN DATUK
PATINGGI HJ. ABDUL RAHMAN
[2005] 2 CLJ 645
6/22/2019 36
Hashim Yusoff JCA : …the correct test is
whether the words complained of were
calculated to expose the plaintiff to hatred,
ridicule or contempt in the mind of a reasonable
man or would tend to lower the plaintiff in the
estimation of right thinking members of society
generally.

37. 6/22/2019 37
KELUARGA COMMUNICATION SDN BHD V.
NORMALA SAMSUDIN & ANOTHER APPEAL
[2006] 2 CLJ 45
UMMI HAFILDA ALI & KETUA SETIAUSAHA
PARTI ISLAM SEMALAYSIA (PAS) & ORS
[2006] 3 CLJ 252
ANSARI ABDULLAH V SHALMON SANANGAN
[2016] 10 MLJ 39

38. 2. Kata-kata / kenyataan itu merujuk kpd
plaintiff
6/22/2019 38
- Jika plaintif disebutkan dgn nyata dlm kenyataan itu,
elemen ini mudah utk dibuktikan. Elemen ini sukar utk
dibuktikan jika plaintif dirujuk secara inferens sahaja
- Ujiannya :
DAVID SYME V. CANAVAN
(1918) 25 CLR 234
Adakah suatu yg munasabah bg mereka yg biasa dgn plaintif utk
mempercayai bhw plaintif adalah orang yg dimaksudkan dlm
kenyataan tersebut?

39. HULTON V. JONES
[1910] AC 20
6/22/2019 39
It did not matter that the defendant did not intend to defame him, all
that matter was what a reasonable person would understand the
words to mean.
ABDUL KHALID V. PARTIISLAM SEMALAYSIA & ORS
[2004] 4 CLJ 15
The Q is not whether anyone did identify the plaintiff but whether
persons who were acquainted with the plaintiff could identify him
from the words used. I am of the view that it is not necessary that
the words should refer to the plaintiff by name provided that the
words would be understood by reasonable people to refer to the
plaintiff…It is not necessary that all the world should understand the
libel; it is sufficient if those who know the plaintiff can make out that
he is the person referred to.

40. 22/6/2019 40
Kenyataan yg merujuk kpd sekumpulan
orang
e.g : semua ahli politik adalah tidak
berguna
- plaintif mestilah berupaya
membuktikan bhw kenyataan
itu sebenarnya merujuk pd
plaintif.

41. 22/6/2019 41
KNUPFFER V. LONDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD
[1944] 1 ALL ER 495
Tuntutan plaintif gagal krn tuduhan ‘fascism’ ditujukan kpd
sekumpulan orang, bukan kpd plaintif.
TENGKU JAAFAR TENGKU AHMAD V. KARPAL SINGH
[1993] 2 AMR 2062
WONG YOKE KONG & ORS V. AZMI M ANSHAR & ORS
MOHAMMED AKHBAR BABA V. NEW STRAITS TIMES PRESS
[2007] 8 CLJ 16

42. 22/6/2019 42
3. Kenyataan itu mestilah
disiarkan/diterbitkan
- disiarkan kpd pihak ketiga sama ada dlm bentuk
tetap / tidak tetap
- apabila sesuatu kenyataan itu dicetak, mereka
yg akan bertanggungan ialah :
i. penulis;
ii. penerbit;
iii. penjual; dan
iv. penyedia perkhidmatan Internet /
Internet service provider
GODFREY V. DEMON INTERNET
[2000] 3 WLR 1020

43. DR. JENNI IBRAHIM V. S. PAKIANATHAN
[1986] 2 MLJ 154
JOEL SALAYSAY V. MEDICAL LABORATORY
LTD & ANOR
[1985] 2 MLJ 185
THEAKER V. RICHARDSON
[1962] 1 ALL ER 229
6/22/2019 43

44. 6/22/2019 44
DATO’ SERI TIONG KING SING V. DATUK JUSTINE
JINGGUT
[2003] 7 CLJ 433
UMMI HAFILDA ALI V. KETUA SETIAUSAHA PARTI ISLAM
SEMALAYSIA (PAS) & ORS
[2006] 3 CLJ 252
ROSAINI SHAMSUDDIN V. ANTARA HOLIDAY VILLAS SDN
BHD
[2007] 7 CLJ 201

45. Innuendo
6/22/2019 45
- Sesuatu kenyataan / gambar dsbnya jika diberi tafsiran
secara biasa dan semulajadi tidak terjumlah kpd fitnah
- Fitnah berlaku apabila ia dikaitkan dgn suatu fakta yg
lain
TOLLEY V. JS FRY & SONS LTD
[1931] AC 333
THE MERCIER’S FINE FURNISHING PTE LTD & ANOR V
ITAKONOM (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD
[1996] 3 CLJ 590
Kenyataan “Italy leading supplier of fine Italian furniture
ABITA ITALIA is the only genuine display center in Kuala
Lumpur”.

46. 22/6/2019 46
Permohonan maaf
 S.7(1) – pihak yg mengeluarkan kenyataan secara
innocent boleh meminta maaf drp pihak yg satu lagi.
 S.7(1)(a) – jika diterima, tiada tindakan libel atau slander
boleh diambil oleh pihak yg satu lagi.
 S.7(1)(b) – jika tidak diterima oleh pihak yg satu lagi,
adalah satu pembelaan kpd pihak yg membuat kenyataan
bhw kenyataan itu diterbitkan secara innocent dan
permohonan maaf tlh dilakukan dgn segera dan ia masih
blm ditarik balik.

47. 22/6/2019 47
 S. 10 – defendan boleh
mengemukakan keterangan bhw dia
telah meminta maaf seblm tindakan
dimulakan utk mengurangkan ganti
rugi.
MGG PILLAI V. TAN SRI VINCENT TAN

48. 6/22/2019 48

49. 22/6/2019 1
FITNAH II –
DALIHAN/PEMBELAAN

50. Pembelaan
Sebelum mahkamah mempertimbangkan
pembelaan yg dikemukakan oleh
defendan, mahkamah perlu memutuskan
sama ada elemen-elemn fitnah wujud
atau tidak. Mahkamah tidak boleh terus
mempertimbangkan pembelaan tanpa
memutuskan bahawa fitnah wujud atau
tidak.
22/6/2019 2

51. Abu Hassan bin Hasbullah v Zukeri bin
Ibrahim
[2018] 6 MLJ 396
Dlm kes ini mahkamah yg membicarakan tidak mempertimbangkan
kewujudan elemen-elemen fitnah sebelum mempertimbangkan
mengenai pembelaan yg dikemukakan oleh defendan. Mahkamah
Persekutuan telah menyelar tindakan hakim yg membicarakan:
In a defamation case, the learned judge has a duty to rule on the
three essential ingredients of the tort of defamation before he
proceeds to decide on the defences pleaded by the defendant in his
defence. Firstly, the learned judge ought to determine if the
impugned emails were capable of bearing the defamatory meaning as
ascribed in para 9 of the SOC. Secondly the learned judge ought to
examine if the impugned emails referred to the plaintiff. Lastly the
learned judge ought to have resolved if the impugned emails were
published to a third person.
22/6/2019 3

52. 22/6/2019 4
Pembelaan
1. Kerelaan / kebenaran plaintif
Pembelaan ini boleh dikemukakan oleh defendan jika kenyataan
yg diterbitkan itu dibenarkan oleh plainitf. Apa yg perlu
dibuktikan oleh defendana ialah kebenaran drp plaintif
COOKSON V. HAREWOOD
[1932] 2 KB 478
Kenyataan yg diterbitkan menyebutkan bahawa plaintif tidak
dibenarkan utk menunggang kuda di kelabnya.. Plaintif
mengatakan bahawa ini adalah innuendo.

53. 22/6/2019 5
Pembelaan - samb
2. Kewajaran / justification
- defendan perlu buktikan bhw apa yg
dikatakan terhadap plaintif adalah
benar/betul.
- apabila defendna dapat membuktikan
bahawa apa yg dinyatakan itu adalah
benar, mahkamah tidak akan mengambil
kira elemen malice ketika defendna
mengeluarkan statement tersebut.

54. DATO’ SERI ANWAR B IBRAHIM V DATO’
SERI DR MAHATHIR B MOHAMAD
[1999] 4 MLJ 58
KAMALANATHAN RATNAM J: it
follows therefore that what is true,
cannot be defamatory.
22/6/2019 6

55. ANSARI ABDULLAH V SHALMON
SANANGAN
Fitnah dilakukan di facebook. Defendan mengemukakan dalihan
kewajaran dan komen berpatutan.
Held: A justification plea means that the published words and
the imputation it conveys are true. The burden to prove the
defence of justification lies upon the defendant as the law
presumes that defamatory words are false… To establish a
plea of justification, the defence must prove that the
defamatory imputation is true. It is not enough for him to
prove that he believed that the imputation was true, even
though it was published as belief only. If A says of B that A
believes B committed murder A cannot justify by saying and
proving that A did believe it.
22/6/2019 7

56. ANSARI ABDULLAH V SHALMON
SANANGAN-SAMB
A can only justify by proving the fact of murder. Similarly, if
the defendant has written that A said that B, the plaintiff,
had been convicted of theft it will be no defence for the
defendant to prove that A did tell him so, that he honestly
believed what A said, and only repeated it. He must prove as a
fact that B was convicted of theft. If A repeats a rumour A
cannot say that it is true by proving that the rumour in fact
existed. A must prove that the subject-matter of the rumour
is true.
Defendan gagal dlm pembelaan kewajaran kerana defendan
hanya bergantung kpd statutory declaration yang dibuat oleh
pihak ketiga yang mengatakan plaintif telah menerima wang.
22/6/2019 8

57. 22/6/2019 9
Pembelaan – samb.
• Jika terdapat beberapa tuduhan, defendan
tidak akan gagal dlm pembelaan kewajaran
hanya krn dia tidak dpt membuktikan
kesemua tuduhan tersebut : s.8 AF
ABD. RAHMAN TALIB V. SEENIVASAGAM
[1965] 1 MLJ 42

58. Irene Fernandez v UtusanMelayu (M)
Sdn Bhd & Anor
In a defamation action, the defence of justification is complete
defense if it succeeds. And the question of malice or bad faith does
not arise. But, in order to succeed in the defence of justification a
defendant must establish the truth of all the material statements in
the words complained of which may include defamatory comments
made therein. And in order to justify such comment, it is necessary to
show that the comments are correct imputations or conclusions to be
drawn from the proved facts. However, the plea of justification does
not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not provided
if the words proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s
reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges (see s
8 of the Defamation Act 1957 and Abdul Rahman Talib v
Seenivasagam & Anor [1966] 2 MLJ 66). It is also to be noted the
partial justification may be useful in the mitigation of damages.
22/6/2019 10

59. CHEAH CHENG HOC & ORS V LIEW
YEW TIAM & ORS
[2000] 5 CLJ 475
It is sufficient to prove the main
charge or gist of the libel is true.
22/6/2019 11

60. 22/6/2019 12
Pembelaan –samb.
3. Komen yg berpatutan/fair comment
Pembelaan ini berdasarkan kpd 4 elemen:
a. kata-kata yg digunakan mestilah merupakan komen, bukan
kenyataan fakta;
b. Perkara utama dlm komen mestilah menyentuh
kepentingan awam;
c. Komen hendaklah berdasarkan kpd fakta sebenar : s.9 AF
d. Komen hendaklah berpatutan – adil, tiada unsur
dendam/malice

61. MERIVALE V CARSON
{1887) 20 QBD 275
A fair and bona fide comment on a matter of public
interest is no libel.
DIGBY V FINANCIAL NEWS [1909] 1 KB
239
Comments in order to be fair must be based upon
facts and if the defendants cannot show that his
comments contain no misstatements of facts he
cannot prove a defence of fair comments.
22/6/2019 13

62. ANSARI ABDULLAH V SHALMON
SANANGAN
22/6/2019 14
Dlm kes ini defendan juga mengemukakan dalihan komen berpatutan.
Held: In Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam v Goh Chok Tong [1989] 3 MLJ 1, the
Privy Council referred to four crucial elements in relation to the defence of
fair comment. They are as follows:
(a) the words complained of are comment, although they may consist or
include inferences of fact;
(b) the comment is on a matter of public interest;
(c) the comment is based on facts; and
(d) the comment is one which a fair-minded person can honestly make on
the facts proved.

63. 22/6/2019 15
Pembelaan –samb.
LONDON ARTISTS LTD V. LITTLER
[1969] 2 ALL ER 192
Lord Denning : there is no definition in the books as
to what is a matter of public interest…Whenever
a matter is such as to affect people at large, so
that they may be legitimately interested in, or
concerned at, what is going on or what may happen
to them or to others; then it is a matter of public
interest on which everyone is entitled to make a
fair comment.

64. ANSARI ABDULLAH V SHALMON
SANANGAN-SAMB
22/6/2019 16
Hakim telah merujuk buku Gatley on Libel and Slander (8th Ed). It reads
as follows:
Comment is a statement of opinion on facts. It is comment to say that a
certain act which a man has done is disgraceful or dishonourable; it is an
allegation of fact to say he did the act so criticized … while a comment is
usually a statement of opinion as to merits or demerits of conduct, an
inference of fact may also be a comment. There are, in the cases, no
clear definitions of what is comment. If the statement appears to be one
of opinion or conclusion, it is capable of being comment.
Held: Assuming that the fact that the plaintiff took a bag filled with
cash from Datuk Ayob Aman had been proven and the defendant had
proceeded to make a statement that it was a dishonourable thing to do, it
would amount to a comment. However, the defendant merely repeated the
unfounded allegation that the plaintiff took a bag filled with cash.
Therefore the defence of fair comment failed.

65. Abu Hassan bin Hasbullah v Zukeri bin Ibrahim
[2018] 6 MLJ 396
22/6/2019 17
Plaintif merupakan senior lecturer dan Dekan Fakulti Teknologi Kreatif dan Warisan.
Defendan ialah pensyarah percubaan di Fakulti yang sama. Plaintif menghujahkan
bahawa defendan telah membuat 2 offensive emails dan menghantar emel tersebut
kpd kakitangan akademik dan semua pentadbir Fakulti. Dlm emel tersebut, defendan
mengatakan bahawa plaintif telah melakukan tipuan dlm tesis PhD nya dlm aspek
rujukan dan kandungan tesis serta berhubung dgn program yg tidak disahkan oleh
MQA. Plaintif menghujahkan bahawa perkataan dalam emel yang dipersoalkan itu
bersifat fitnah terhadap plaintif dan dianggap untuk memperkecilkan plaintif. Plaintif
selanjutnya mendakwa bahawa penerbitan emel yang dipersoalkan itu, yang
berkemungkinan diedarkan dan dibaca oleh penerima, dihantar dengan niat jahat dan
telah mengakibatkan plaintif berasa amat sedih dan malu dan reputasi peribadinya
dan juga di pejabat telah terjejas teruk. Berikutan itu, plaintif memfailkan satu
tindakan fitnah terhadap defendan. Dalam menjawab, defendan memplidkan bahawa
perkataan yang dikatakan sebagai fitnah dalam emel yang dipersoalkan itu adalah
benar dan bersandar kepada pembelaan justifikasi. Dia juga mendakwa bahawa emel
yang dipersoalkan adalah ‘fair comment’ berhubung dengan public interest.

66. 22/6/2019 18
Pembelaan –samb.
4. Keistimewaan
a. keistimewaan mutlak
- menyediakan forum yg tidak terhad utk
berkomunikasi.
- keistimewaan mutlak adalah superior drp
implikasi kenyataan yg dikeluarkan

67. Pembelaan –samb.
Kewujudan niat jahat tidak menghalang defendan drp
bergantung pd pembelaan ini.
BHLB TRUSTEE BHD & ANOR V HSBC (M)
TRUSTEEBHD & ORS
[2006] 4 MLJ 48
Mahkamah Tinggi telah memberikan contoh2 keistimewaan
mutlak spt Parliamentary Privilege, Judicial Privilege, Official
Privilege, Statutory Privilege, Reports of Parliamentary
Proceedings, Newspaper Reports of Judicial Proceedings and
The Q of Public Policy.
22/6/2019 19

68. Pembelaan –samb.
O’CONNOR V WALDRON
[1935] AC 76
Keistimewaan mutlak juga diperluaskan
kpd keterangan di tribunal yg mana
walaupun bukan mahkamah tetapi
prosedurnya seakan-akan mahkamah.
22/6/2019 20

69. 22/6/2019 21
Pembelaan –samb.
b. Keistimewaan bersyarat / qualified
- s.12 AF
- kewujudan niat jahat akan menafikan
defendan drp pembelaan ini
- laporan dlm akhbar
- laporan dlm berita

70. Kesan kematian ke atas tindakan fitnah
• S.8(1) Akta Undang-undang Sivil 1956
– Kausa tindakan bagi fitnah terhenti apabila pihak kepada
tindakan (plaintif/defendan) meninggal dunia.
ARJILAN BIN MUHAMMAD & ORS V DATUK MUSBAH
JAMIL & ORS
[2012] MLJU 682
Plaintif merupakan waris simati yg dihujahkan telah difitnah
dlm sebuah artikel yg diterbitkan dlm Berita Harian. Implikasi
artikel tersebut menunjukkan bahawa Allahyarham Arshad
bertanggungjawab ke atas kematian Embo Ali. Plaintif
mengatakan bahawa Arshad telah difitnah. Plaintif adalah cucu
dan cicit Arshad.
• Isu: Whether the Plaintiffs' claim is barred by section 8(1) of
the Civil Law Act 1956 ?
22/6/2019 22

71. Kesan kematian ke atas tindakan
fitnah-Samb
Held: The common law position of the rights of deceased persons to sue
for defamation is crystal clear and it is this. A deceased person cannot
be defamed. Similarly, a deceased person cannot through his or her next
of kin sue to restore his or her reputation. Further even if a suit for
defamation was instituted by the deceased person when he was alive,
that suit will end when the deceased passes away and his next of kin
cannot continue with it for the benefit of the estate. In Malaysia, the
common law is embodied in section 8(1) of the
Civil Law Act 1956 which reads as follows:-
• Subject to this section, on death of any person all causes of action
subsisting against or vested in him shall survive
• against, or, as the case may be, for the benefit of, his estate:
• Provided that this subsection shall not apply to causes of action for
defamation
22/6/2019 23

72. 22/6/2019 24