NAVIGATING MALAYSIAN DEFAMATION LAW: UNDERSTANDING KEY DEFENSES AND THEIR RATIONALE
In the realm of Malaysian defamation law, understanding the defenses available to those accused of defamation is crucial for both parties involved in a lawsuit.
For the defendant, this knowledge can be the key to avoiding liability or minimizing damages. For the plaintiff, comprehending these defenses can help them develop a strategy to effectively counter them and prove the defendant's statements are defamatory.
1. In this article, we delve into several key defenses within Malaysian defamation law and the rationale behind each one, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of this complex legal landscape.
Absolute Privilege
2. Absolute privilege is a robust defense against defamation lawsuits that apply to statements made during official proceedings, whether in a Court Proceedings, Parliament, Police Report, Judges, Lawyers, witnesses, and parties involved in a litigation, regardless of the presence of malice or personal ill-will.
3. The rationale for absolute privilege is to protect the sanctity of the judicial process, ensuring participants can speak freely without the looming threat of defamation lawsuits.
4. For instance, a witness who accuses a party of lying and thievery during their testimony cannot be sued for defamation, even if the statements are false and malicious, due to the absolute privilege defense.
Qualified Privilege
5. Qualified privilege applies when an individual has a legal, moral, or social duty to make a statement, and the recipient has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it.
6. However, this defense can be nullified if the defamatory statement is made with malice, or if the person making the statement is reckless or indifferent to its truth.
7. For instance, an employee who reports alleged misconduct by a colleague to their manager, who has the authority to investigate and address the issue, is protected from a defamation lawsuit under the qualified privilege defense if the report is made in good faith.
Justification
8. The defense of justification comes into play when the defendant can prove that the defamatory statement is true or substantially true.
9. As the law presumes defamatory words are false, the burden of proof lies with the defendant. If the defendant can establish that the main charge or gist of the libel is true, there is no need to justify statements or comments that do not add to the sting of the charge.
10. For instance, if a newspaper can prove that a politician indeed took bribes, as claimed in an article, the defense of justification can be employed to defeat a defamation lawsuit.
11. The underlying rationale is that truth is a defense to defamation since the purpose of defamation law is to protect individuals from false statements that damage their reputation.
Fair Comment
12. The defense of fair comment is applicable when a defamatory statement is an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest, based on true facts.
13. To use this defense, the defendant must prove that the words are a comment, the comment is based on true facts, the opinion expressed is fair, and the matter is of public interest.
14. Consider a blogger who critiques a public figure's policy decisions, basing their opinion on accurate and factual information. The blogger's statements can be protected under the fair comment defense if the opinions are fair and the matter is of public interest.
15. The rationale behind fair comment is to uphold freedom of expression, enabling individuals to express their opinions on matters of public interest without fearing defamation lawsuits, provided their comments are grounded in true facts and are fair.
Innocent Dissemination
16. Innocent dissemination is a defense that can be raised by parties who unknowingly and without negligence published or distributed defamatory material.
17. This defense aims to protect parties who were unaware of the defamatory content, such as internet service providers, bookstores, or newsstands. It acknowledges that some distributors may not have control over the content they handle or may not have the means to assess the material for potential defamatory statements.
18. For example, if a bookstore sells a book containing defamatory content without being aware of the content, they may claim innocent dissemination as a defense if they took reasonable care and had no reason to believe the material was defamatory.
19. The rationale behind innocent dissemination is to strike a balance between protecting the reputation of individuals and not unfairly penalizing distributors who may not have the resources or ability to vet every piece of content they handle.
Offer of Amends
20. Another defense in Malaysian defamation law is the offer of amends. This defense allows the defendant to make an offer to the plaintiff to make amends for the defamatory statement, which may include an apology, a retraction, or compensation.
21. If the plaintiff accepts the offer and the defendant fulfills the terms, the defamation claim may be dismissed.
22. The rationale behind the offer of amends is to encourage parties to resolve defamation disputes without resorting to litigation, fostering a more efficient and cost-effective resolution that satisfies both parties.
23. All things considered, understanding these key defenses in Malaysian defamation law is vital for both plaintiffs and defendants, enabling them to navigate the legal process more effectively. By exploring the rationale behind each defense, we hope that it would provide a clearer picture of how Malaysian courts operate and the factors they consider when deciding defamation cases. These defenses are essential in striking a balance between protecting individuals' reputations and upholding freedom of expression, while also fostering a more efficient resolution of disputes.
____________________
Disclaimer: This article is published for the purpose of awareness and general knowledge. Any part contained in this article should not be considered as a guide to initiate legal action independently without first consulting an experienced lawyer.
For any further information regarding this article or to schedule a legal consultation session, you may contact your preferred lawyer, or you may reach us via WhatsApp by clicking the yellow image above. Note that the information in this article is accurate at the time of publication and may be subject to change without notice. We will not be liable for any action or failure to act taken based on the information contained in this article.
Nor Hafeez adalah seorang peguamcara sivil yang beramal sebagai seorang peguam dan pemilik penuh sebuah firma guaman yang mempunyai pejabat kecil di pinggir Kuala Lumpur. Beliau mengendalikan pelbagai kes-kes sivil dan pelbagai masalah berkait dengan undang-undang sivil Malaysia seperti kes saman malu, langgar kontrak, hutang peribadi dan korporat, pencerobohan tanah, penceraian bukan islam, harta pusaka, pemecatan kerja, konsultan tuntutan CIPAA dan sebagainya. Di masa lapang, beliau berkongsi ilmu melalui penulisan blog dan sekali sekala menggunakan telefon untuk mengambil dan mengedit gambar secara amatur. Beliau juga adalah seorang glory hunter yang meminati Manchester City dan juga segelas Nescafe Ais diwaktu pagi.
0 Pertanyaan & Jawapan
Anda mempunyai sebarang pertanyaan? Tanya saya di sini atau whatsapp saya dengan klik butang whatsapp di skrin atau isi borang pertanyaan.