SHAH ALAM: The High Court here has dismissed a defamation suit by a lawyer against Deputy Inspector-General of Police Datuk Seri Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay.
The lawyer, Kamal Hisham Jaafar, had sued Ayob Khan for tarnishing his reputation at a press conference in 2021.
Ayob Khan – who was then the Johor police chief – told the media that a lawyer had been arrested for allegedly cheating an advertising company of RM185,062.
He also claimed that the lawyer had ties with the Johor royal family and was previously convicted for money laundering and criminal breach of trust (CBT).
On these, Kamal claimed that the high ranking police officer wanted to injure his reputation.
Last Thursday, High Court judge Tee Geok Hock dismissed Kamal’s suit, stating that Ayob Khan had not mentioned his name throughout the press conference. Kamal was ordered to pay RM20,000 in costs.
“The defendant (Ayob Khan) did not say anything which could lead a listener to make any reasonable inference that the lawyer suspect was the same lawyer who attracted much publicity in the newspapers a few years before the press conference,” he said in his judgment.
The court also heard that Kamal was charged with 17 charges consisting of CBT, money laundering and offences under the Companies Act at the Johor Baru Sessions Court in 2015.
He pleaded guilty to an alternative charge under the Companies Act and was fined RM30,000 in 2018.
The court also took into consideration the other 16 charges before handing down the sentence. However, no conviction was recorded.
Tee said Ayob Khan had proven the balance of probabilities that Kamal had admitted to committing CBT and money laundering offences in the past.
The lack of a formal court record for conviction for such offences did not materially injure Kamal’s reputation, he added.
“To a reasonable man, in the context of defamation, there is no real difference between a recorded conviction of an accused person and admission made in the court by the accused that he had committed the offence.
“In both situations, the reasonable man’s understanding is that the accused person was guilty of the offence,” he said.
The judge also ruled that there was not malice by Ayob Khan to injure Kamal’s reputation, based on Ayob Khan’s tone and facial expression during the press conference.
“Based on my observation, this court finds that the defendant merely read the press statement as prepared by ACP Siva in an official and professional manner.
“The video recording of the press conference shows the defendant did not mention the plaintiff’s name at all during the press conference or during the question-and-answer session after issuing the press statement.
“There was no evidence or indication to suggest any malice at all,” he added.
Tee said there was no finding of intention on the part of the defendant to shame the plaintiff’s character, image and career.
According to court documents sighted by The Star, the court viewed that there was a need or duty of the part of the police, including the chief police officer to impart information to the public at large.
It also stated that there is a reciprocal interest on the part of the public to receive that information in relation to important matters and/or matters of public interest.
These matters include but are not limited to incidents or complaints of individuals impersonating as representatives of a Royal Palace, government department or a high office bearer of the government and incidents or trends of scams or criminal activities such as investment and Internet scams.
