Court of Appeal president Justice Raus Sharif set December 22 for a written reply by the counsel for the appellant (Harris), and January 5, 2016 for the written reply by the counsel for the respondents, Yong and SAPP.
Raus, who sat together with Justices Ahmad Haji Maarop, Hasan Lah, Abu Samah Nordin and Aziah Ali, also ordered the appellant to submit on the issue of quantum.
Yesterday, Yunof Maringking, who represented the appellant, submitted that the defence of qualified privilege could not be invoked by the respondents.
Yunof directed the court’s attention to the trial judge’s finding, in which it was ruled that the respondents had no duty to communicate new information regarding the tragedy neither to the press nor the general public.
This is due to the fact that the information was based on assumptions which insinuated crime in regard to the appellant, thus rejecting the respondents’ defence of qualified privilege.
It is unfair and unjust for the respondents to insinuate the appellant with murder and assassination in the published statements without basis, or on pure assumption and speculation, said Yunof.
In light of that, Yunof prayed for the Court of Appeal’s decision to be set aside and for the High Court’s judgement to be restored.
He also implored the court to allow the appellant’s appeal with cost and interests thereon, until full settlement is achieved.
In reply, Queen’s Counsel Geoffrey Robertson for the respondents insisted that the Court of Appeal had arrived at the correct finding when it held that the respondent could rely on the defence of qualified privilege.
The Court of Appeal held correctly that the first respondent’s statements were issued on a privileged occasion, said Geoffrey.
He contended that, as a politician and the leader of a political party, the first respondent had a duty or, at least, an interest to communicate with the public through his first and second statements and to call for a fresh inquiry into the cause of the crash.
Geoffrey further argued that the defence of qualified privilege could be invoked by the first respondent against the appellant, in view of the fact that it was truthful and accurate that the information was volunteered through a speech by Tengku Razaleigh, and that the information was not yet known by the public at the time.
Furthermore, Geoffrey urged the court to reconsider the costs and damages granted by the trial judge in favour of the appellant, as the Court of Appeal had correctly held that it was excessive.
Earlier in November, the court allowed the appellant’s leave application to appeal on only one question of law.
The question allowed by the court, which had been amended, is on whether the defence of qualified privilege can be invoked by the first respondent against any person who relied on information, the truthfulness or accuracy of which is doubted and/or which is already known by the public.
On February 29, 2012, Harris won the libel suit at the High Court against Yong and SAPP over insinuations of having been involved in causing the Double Six tragedy, which claimed the lives of Tun Fuad Stephens and all those on board the Nomad aircraft on June 6, 1976.
Yong and SAPP were ordered to pay RM1 million to Harris in damages, who named Yong as first defendant and SAPP as second defendant, for libel.
However, the Court of Appeal on Nov 18, 2013, had set aside the High Court’s decision and allowed the appeal by SAPP and Yong with costs of RM150,000.
In addition, Harris was ordered to refund the amount paid by Yong and SAPP to him.
By Nur Fiqah Rsolan
No comments:
Post a Comment