Thursday, June 27, 2019

LPAB & CJ NSW have demonstrated why "public document" defence rules should be limited

by Ganesh Sahathevan


A summary of the public document defense is provided by Chris Moore and ChloƩ Ellis of Hicksons

A complete defence is available to a defamation action if the matter complained of was contained in ‘public document’. [1]

The defence is primarily available to government and statutory bodies who publish information including on online public registers published in the course of their statutory duties.

A defence established for publication of a ‘public document’ is defeated if, and only if, the plaintiff proves that the defamatory matter was not published honestly for the information of the public or the advancement of education.

[1] As defined - Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 28(1); Defamation Act 2005 (Vihe c) s 28(1); Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) s 28(1); Defamation Act 2005 (SA) s 26(1); Defamation Act 2005 (WA) s 28(1); Defamation Act 2005 (Tas) s 28(1).


While government and its civil servants need to be protected in the course of carrying out their duties the recent case where  the  Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB) published documents which contained findings of a conspiracy involving Tony Blair,Donald Rumsfeld, the current  Prime Minister of Malaysia, a number of prominent ABC journalists, the internationally acclaimed Clare Rewcastle-Brown (sister -in-law of the former Prime Minister of the UK, Gordon Brown) and this writer suggest that that privilege needs to be reviewed.

That the LPAB is chaired by the Chief Justice NSW and overseen by the Attorney General NSW illustrates how difficult it can be to challenge published findings; there is at least an unwritten presumption that civil servants and other government officials are persons whose integrity must never be questioned.

Additionally there appears to be a growing tendency towards anonymous publication. The LPAB  for example has taken to issuing unsigned letters (or documents initialed "on behalf of the Board") and to digitally scrubbing documents to ensure that the normal record of names and dates involved in the production of documents is removed.


It has been reported previously that the LPAB has also sought to re-write the facts underlying decisions of the NSW Supreme Court in order to justify its published findings.

The public document defense is a concept that belongs to a time gone by when decisions of government and its various arms could not be easily verified. The Net and easy access to databases changes all that, but civil servants have not quite understood that fact. So  long as they remain protected,they will continue to publish material that may well be difficult to challenge in court, but which can nevertheless harm the credibility of government both locally and overseas.

END 

SEE ALSO



Bizarre blog claims used to deny man right to practise law

Former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak.Former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak.


The body overseen by Chief Justice Tom Bathurst responsible for deciding who can practise law in NSW relied on a wildly defamatory Malaysian blog depicting ABC journalists, former British prime minister Tony Blair, financier George Soros and others as part of a global conspiracy when deciding to deny a would-be solicitor a certificate to practise.

Chief Justice Bathurst and Legal Practitioner Admission Board executive officer Louise Pritchard declined to answer The Australian’s questions about how the article came into the board’s hands and why its members felt the conspiracy-laden material could be relied upon as part of a decision to deny Sydney man Ganesh Sahathevan admission as a lawyer. Nor would either say which of the 10 members of the LPAB, three of whom are serving NSW Supreme Court judges, was on the deciding panel.

Ms Pritchard has left her role at the LPAB since The Australian began making inquiries in September. The article, published in December 2017 on website The Third Force, accuses Mr Sahathevan of engaging in a conspiracy to attack then Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak.

READ NEXT



Mahathir Mohamad, who returned as prime minister after toppling Mr Najib in elections held last May, is also smeared as a participant in the globe-spanning conspiracy.

Mr Najib was under pressure at the time over the country’s sovereign wealth fund, 1MDB, which the US Department of Justice says has been looted of billions of dollars that was spent on property, art, jewels and the Leonardo DiCaprio film, The Wolf of Wall Street.

Malaysian authorities have charged Mr Najib with dozens of corruption offences that could attract decades in jail over his role in the 1MDB scandal, which allegedly included the flow of about $US1 billion through his personal bank account.

The article’s author, Malaysian political operative and Najib loyalist Raggie Jessy, also accused Rewcastle-Brown, Stein and Besser of receiving money, totalling millions of dollars, to participate in a Four Corners program exposing the 1MDB scandal that aired on the ABC in March 2016.

There is no suggestion any of Mr Jessy’s bizarre allegations are true. However, the LPAB cited the piece when denying Mr Sahathevan admission as a lawyer in an undated and unsigned set of reasons sent to him on August 3 last year.

It used the article as evidence in a passage dealing with legal conflicts between Mr Sahathevan, who has largely worked in the past as a journalist, his former employer, Malaysia’s Sun Media Group, and the company’s owner, tycoon Vincent Tan.

In that context, the board said the Third Force article reported “that Mr Sahathevan was investigated for blackmail, extortion, bribery and defamation”. While the article claims that blackmail, extortion, bribery and defamation “are but some of the transgressions many from around the world attribute” to Mr Sahathevan, The Australian was unable to find any reference in it to an investigation into him on these grounds.

It is unclear why the board felt the need to rely on the article, as it also made adverse findings about Mr Sahathevan’s character based on a series of other allegations including that he used “threatening and intimidating” language in emails to the College of Law and the NSW Attorney General and did not disclose his sacking from a previous job to the board.

Mr Sahathevan has denied the allegations in correspondence with the board.

The board also cited evidence that one of Mr Sahathevan’s blogs on Malaysian politics was banned by the Najib regime as indicating his poor character.

In an email to Chief Justice Bathurst, sent on August 30, Rewcastle-Brown said her site, Sarawak Report, which exposed much of the 1MDB scandal, was banned by the Malaysian government.

“I along with other critics of the 1MDB scandal (which includes Mr Sahathevan) became the target of immense state-backed vilification, intimidation and online defamation campaigns on behalf of the Malaysian government,” she said.

She said the board’s use of the Third Force article against Mr Sahathevan displayed “a troubling level of misjudgment and poor quality research, giving a strong impression that someone seeking to find reasons to disqualify this candidate simply went through the internet looking for ‘dirt’ against him”.

“The Third Force has consistently been by far the most outlandish, libellous, vicious and frankly ludicrous of all the publications that were commissioned as part of former prime minister Najib Razak’s self-proclaimed ‘cyber army’ which he paid (and continues to pay) to defame his perceived enemies and critics,” she said.

Besser, who now works in the ABC’s London bureau, told The Australian: “It’s clearly nonsense and comes from the darkest corners of some pretty wild Malaysian conspiracy theorists.”

Mr Sahathevan’s application is to be reconsidered at an LPAB meeting next month (Admission has since been denied, for the same reasons, but without explicit reference to the Thirdforce story).
BUSINESS REPORTER
Business reporter Ben Butler has covered everything from tractors to fashion to corporate collapses. He has previously worked for the Herald Sun and as a senior business reporter with The Age and Sydney Morning... 

Friday, June 21, 2019

DFAT's Malaysian lawyer Shafee who has been charged with money laundering, given access to NSW's Long Bay Prison

by Ganesh Sahathevan


A decision handed down in Malaysia,reported by The Malay Mail and New Straits Times:
Lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who is facing money laundering charges totalling RM9.5 million succeeded in his bid to reclaim his passport to travel to Australia for work purposes.



In May, he failed to regain his passport to attend the drug case involving his client in Australia although he was allowed to do so on two previous occasions.
High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah had then dismissed his application, stating that Shafee’s presence was merely to assist the appointed counsel there.
“The applicant’s presence at the detention facility in Long Bay is for the purpose of assisting in translation from the Malay language, which he can also do by sending a representative.


Shafee is facing two counts of money-laundering relating to a RM9.5 million payment he received from Najib.
He was also charged under the Income Tax Act with two counts of making false declarations to the Inland Revenue Board for not including the RM9.5 million in his tax filing for that year.
On the first and second counts, Shafee was alleged to have involved himself in money-laundering activities by receiving proceeds of unlawful activities via two cheques belonging to Najib totalling RM4.3 million and RM5.2 million respectively, on Sept 13, 2013 and Feb 17, 2014.
Shafee was also charged under the Income Tax Act with two counts of making false declarations to the Inland Revenue Board for not including the RM9.5 million in his tax filing for the year.
He was accused of committing the offences at the CIMB Bank Bhd in Taman Bukit Tunku.
On the third and fourth counts, Shafee was alleged to have committed acts contrary to Section 113 (1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967 by omitting the income he received in Sept 13, 2013 totalling RM4.3 million; and on Feb 17, 2014 totalling RM5.2 million.
He was accused of committing the offences at Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri, Duta branch, Government Complex, at Jalan Tuanku Abdul Halim on March 3, 2015 and June 29, 2015.
All four charges were made under Section 4(1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA).

Shafee is the Australian Department Of Foreign Affairs And Trade's go to lawyer in Malaysia (see story below).
END



Thursday, September 13, 2018


DFAT's go-to lawyer in Malaysia charged with money laundering:Shafee Abdullah's 1MDB related charges add to Australian Government 's 1MDB embarrassment.

 by Ganesh Sahathevan
Australian spectators wearing swimwear bearing the Malaysian flag party during the Malaysian Grand Prix




Australian spectators wearing swimwear bearing the Malaysian flag party during the Malaysian Grand Prix

Australian spectators wearing swimwear bearing the Malaysian flag party during the Malaysian Grand Prix
Australian spectators wearing swimwear bearing the Malaysian flag party 
during the Malaysian Grand Prix ( AFP )
Nine Australian 'Budgie Smuggler' strippers released in Malaysia


Australians would be familiar with Malaysian lawyer Shafee Abdullah.

He is often on TV  as the lawyer  representing   Australians charged with drug trafficking in Malaysia, the Australian High Commission in Kuala Lumpur's go-to lawyer  for all if not most drug cases.

He is well connected, his clients including former Malaysian PM Najib Razak.
However, that connection in itself should have been  cause for avoiding the man , given the scandal surrounding Najib and wife Rosmah Mansor since at least 2015.  Shafee not only represented Najib, he acted as his Mr Fix-It(see Sarawak Report story below) and yet he remained the High Commission's favourite. He was even called on to help secure the release of the well-connected "Budgie 9".

Today however Shafee was charged with money laundering, for having received part of the money stolen from 1MDB. The charges against Shafee require investigation of the Australian High Commission's dealings with him, and of the Australian Department Of Foreign Affairs'(DFAT) einsistence on hiring him despite the many red flags.
All this adds to the embarrassing position the Australian  Government finds itself in,as the only other country apart from New Zealand that has refused to conduct any meaningful investigation into the involvement of Australian companies and individuals implicated in the 1MDB theft.
END 













Pascal Najadi - My Fury Over Najib's Lawyer Mohd Shafee Abdullah

Pascal Najadi - My Fury 

Over Najib's Lawyer 

Mohd Shafee Abdullah

Pascal Najadi
Pascal Najadi
The son of the assassinated former chairman of AmBank, Hussein Najadi, has told Sarawak Report that he has deep concerns about the way the lawyer Mohd Shafee Abdullah controlled events after his father was shot in broad daylight in KL.
The shocking event took place just a few weeks before another huge personal payment by Prime Minister Najib was made to Shafee of RM4.3 million.
The payment was transacted on 11th September 2013, whereas Najadi was murdered on 29th July.  Once again, the money came  from Account no: 2112022011906 in Najib’s name, which was funded by money stolen from 1MDB’s subsidiary SRC.
Payment by Najib to Shafee from the 1MDB funded AmBank account
Payment by Najib to Shafee from the 1MDB funded AmBank account
Pascal Najadi, who was in Moscow when the tragedy occured, says that neither he nor his immediate family knew Shafee and no one had contacted him to be involved. Nevertheless, the lawyer mysteriously arrived at the hospital almost as soon as his father’s body was brought into the mortuary and started to take charge of events.
Photographs even show Shafee on the scene as an ambulance bearing Najadi’s injured second wife arrived, bringing Najadi to the mortuary:
Arrow points out Shafee in the background as the dead and injured arrived at hospital
Arrow points out Shafee in the background as the victims arrived at hospital
According to Najadi, the family soon found that this strange lawyer was muscling in on their situation and insisting on taking control. Pascal has testified:
Tuesday July 30 2013, it must have been lunch time or a little later in KL, my mum Heidi Najadi called me from the KLK Morgue where they have laid up the body of my late father… She asked me “there is this Dato Shafee running around rude and nervous acting as if he owns the body of dad and giving orders to all of us?!” I asked my mum, who? She said “His name is Dato Shafee..?!” I told my mum to pass this man on the phone to me.
This is my perception of this call. Dato Shafee was nervous when talking to me, he was breathing short and gave half clipped words answers to my question: “Can we wait with the burial please?” He stuttered to me: “No can not, all is in hand, I take care of all, he will be buried today, this evening…”
Pascal says he was shocked by the haste and by manner in which decisions were taken out of his family’s hands. He says a swift burial was not their custom and he had wanted to be able to fly to KL to attend the ceremony.
Shafee did not say “I am so sorry for your terrible loss….or can I help you are you OK? Where are you now? ” He said nothing of what a normal human or indeed a friend would say.
Shafee was the ad hoc burial master for the body of my late father Hussain without any reason, he even had the service paid every penny of it to make it fast and swift”,
says Najadi in his statement.

“I am taking charge”

Shafee, Scivetti and another joint foreign client on drugs charges
Shafee, Scivetti and another joint foreign client on drugs charges
Speaking to Sarawak Report Pascal Najadi says that Shafee had told the family that he had been ‘put in charge’ of matters, but he never explained by whom.
Shafee, whom he described as brusque and nervous, managed the entire funeral and all the related matters, yet Najadi says the family never received a bill from him.
An email exchange with Shafee Abdullah (copied to Tania Scivetti his legal collaborator and later wife) confirms Najadi’s claim that the lawyer had put himself in charge of events, telling Pascal “I am taking care of the funeral”.
The lawyer even swept aside the son’s request to have words read out at the funeral, which was being held before he could get to his father’s side, saying “it is impossible to read the eulogy you prepared in a Muslim funeral setting” – then, imperiously he declared “I will make sure Hussain gets the best send off” despite refusing to wait a few hours for the arrival of his son:
Curt response from a bossy stranger - the only words Najadi received in writing from Shafee Abdullah
Curt response from a bossy stranger – the only words Najadi received in writing from Shafee Abdullah
Pascal, who describes himself as having been in shock and frightened at the time, soon decided that the situation KL was not safe for his mother and himself and they fled the country, leaving much unfinished business in the process.
However, the role and the behaviour of Shafee has always bothered him, in particular the question over who had so swiftly assigned him to these duties and paid for his services?

Assigned by Najib?  If so, why?

Najadi says there is no evidence that Shafee had any prior connection to his deceased father.  Rather, he says, he later learnt that the lawyer was extremely close to Prime Minister Najib Razak, against whom his father had just made some extremely serious reports.
In the days prior to his mystery assassination Hussein Najadi had, according to his son, first made a formal complaint to the Bank Negara about information he had received about Najib’s huge private bank accounts at AmBank, where Najadi had once been Chairman.
Secondly, just days before his death, Najadi had made a police report about a threatening text to ‘back-off’ the matter, allegedly sent from within the Prime Minister’s Office.
In a written statement made in July 2015 Pascal Najadi told his lawyer:
“I went through the lifelong email archives of my late father to perhaps find a friendly or a business email between the two, I can confirm here, not one email nothing, no trace of contact. Shafee appeared like a flash out of nowhere buried my dad and disappeared into thin air, no call no nothing (!) He vanished fast and without a word like he appeared from nowhere on July 30th 2013. Never heard of the man again…. only after the killing I found out that this Shafee is the de facto lawyer for Najjib and UMNO and is the man who also was hired to put Anwar away. [Pascal Najadi, statement July 2015]
Pascal Najadi says he is now openly questioning whether Najib’s RM4.3 million payment from Najib so soon after these events may have been linked?  He says he has also noted that it was also shortly after his father’s tragic demise that Shafee was given the honour of the title Tan Sri:
“We are still puzzled why and how he surfaced on to the gruesome macabre scene taking charge of the burial. To this day today Shafee, who got promoted to Tan sri right after this horrible event, and his role are a mystery to me.”

Tania Scivetti

Pascal Najadi says that if his concerns are misplaced, then all Shafee needs to do is to give him full disclosure about his role and how all his costs were covered.  Meanwhile, there was another strange intervention, which he says has also bothered him, especially since he now realises it was also linked to Shafee Abdullah.
He had had struck a recent acquaintance, says Najadi, with another KL legal practioner Tania Scivetti. Scivetti’s practice is perhaps best known for supporting high-profile foreign drug offenders caught in Malaysia.  On a number of occasions, she has worked with Shafee to represent them and get them repatriated.
Shafee and Scivetti worked together to assist this and other foreigners who had got into trouble with Malaysian law
Shafee and Scivetti worked together to assist this and other foreigners who had got into trouble with Malaysian law
What Pascal Najadi was not aware of was that Sciavetti (a non-Muslim) was already the common law wife of Shafee Abdullah, whom she later married in the UK.  Shortly after his father’s death Tania called Pascal to offer her legal services and to help put his father’s affairs in order.
In particular, she offered to get the locks changed on Najadi’s offices and to hire a guard to prevent intruders taking documents.  The staff were removed.
Pascal said that he agreed to the suggestion, based on his acquaintance with Scivetti.  For some days Scivetti managed Najadi’s affairs and had total control of all access to his office and his papers.  Then, she ceased answering calls and terminated her services.  This was one email from Pascal, to which she did not reply:
Scivetti abruptly terminated services with the Najadis they say
Scivetti abruptly terminated services with the Najadis they say
Pascal Najadi, who claims his father’s murder has never been properly investigated in Malaysia, has told Sarawak Report that he has been left wondering if Scivetti and Shafee were in fact working together on his case, as in so many others?
If so, he wants to know who prompted them to get in touch and get busy over his father’s death and who paid?
“I want to know if Najib’s multi-million payment to Shafee Abdullah so soon after my father’s death was connected” he told Sarawak Report. “We know this money came from 1MDB so we have a right to know if it was and if so why?  If it was not connected then what was the payment for and who covered Shafee’s costs instead?”




Sunday, June 9, 2019

RCI into judicial corruption needs to review work of Sauffee Afandi bin Mohamad ,formerly of the Sessions Crt,Industrial Crt,and all involved in matters involving Sun Media Group

by Ganesh Sahathevan


Dato' Sauffee Afandi bin Mohamad was a judge of the Sessions Court and the Industrial Court. In 2006 as chairman of the Industrial Court he handed down the decision in Sahathevan v Sun Media in a decision which is probably best described as imaginative,bold and courageous.


In 1998 the then "Sessions judge Saufee Affendi"...(went to Penang) from Kuala Lumpur to "specially hear" a matter against S. Arulldas a reporter from The Sun newspaper, who was charged with defying a court order which prohibited the publication of a matter before the courts.


Saufee's decision in '98 is reported in the stories below.Readers are reminded that mere reporters have no control over publication, which is entirely the decision of the editors. Despite that fact it was only the reporter who was charged, and finally found guilty as charged, after admitting sole guilt, by a judge brought up from Kuala Lumpur to "specially hear" the matter. It does appear as if the decision against the reporter was pre-determined so as to ensure that his superiors,and the publisher of The Sun, Sun Media Group Bhd, did not suffer any penalty.


Many of those involved remain active in the media and in public life in Malaysia, and hence their conduct with regards the above are well within the ambit of the upcoming Royal Commission Of Inquiry into judicial corruption.Readers are reminded that the RCI is meant to restore confidence in the judiciary.

This writer had in 2009 queried Saufee about his dealings with the owners of Sun Media, but he refused to provide a  response.
END





Court fines Sun reporter RM2,500.
By Cynthia Blemin
335 words
17 June 1998
English
(c) The Christchurch Press, INL 1998
Butterworth, Tues: A Sun reporter was fined RM 2,500 today when he admitted defying a court order which prohibited the publication of certain information in the case of a sessions judge who allegedly performed oral sex on a man . Sessions judge Saufee Affendi, who had come from Kuala Lumpur to specially hear the case, delivered his ruling after a 90-minute mitigation plea by defence counsel R. Rajasingam.
He said the court had taken into account the facts of the case, the counsel's mitigation and the prosecution argument. Saufee said accused S. Arulldas' admission of guilt was the main mitigating factor which carries weight when passing sentence . He stressed the need for the media to maintain close rapport with the court. He warned Arulldas against repeating such a mistake and fined him.
Arulldas had earlier claimed trial and the hearing was fixed for three days from today. He admitted commiting the offence through an article published in the paper on March 25, after the facts of the case were read out to him. Arulldas, 42, was charged with contravening Section 101(2) of the Subordinate Courts Act, 1948 (Act 92), which had been invoked by the prosecution in the case involving Butterworth sessions court judge Rungit Singh.
Rungit had been charged with gross indecency and using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a man whose identity has been withheld by the court. The sub-section reads that "a court may, at any time, order that no person shall publish the name, address or photograph of any witness ... or any evidence or any other thing likely to lead to the identification of the witness."
A conviction under this sub-section carries a maximum fine of RM 5,000 or jail up to three years or both. Arulldas, who paid the fine, was accompanied by Sun Media Group editor-in-chief Ahmad Rejal Arbee and editor Andy Ng.
(c) 1998 Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd.
Document thesum0020010928du6h003qw
SUN REPORTER FINED RM2,500 FOR DEFYING COURT ORDER.
372 words
16 June 1998
English
(c) 1998 Chamber World Network
BUTTERWORTH, June 16 (Bernama) - A journalist with the 'Sun' newspaper was today fined RM2,500 for defying a court order when reporting on a case involving a judge.
S.Arulldas, 42, who had pleaded not guilty when charged in the Sessions Court here on April 30, changed his plea today and apologised to the court.
He was charged with defying an order issued by the court on March 24 prohibiting the reporting of any evidence or details that might reveal the identity of the alleged victim in the case against judge Rungit Singh.
Rungit is facing three charges of using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a man, and two alternative charges of committing acts of gross indecency by performing oral sex on the man.
In sentencing Arulldas, judge Sauffee Affendi said counsel R. Rajasingam's hour-long mitigation was the longest he had heard in his legal career and the points put forward had been noted.
According to Rajasingam, the court order was stale as the authorities had not issued a similar gag-order before Rungit was charged and earlier reports in 'The Star' and 'New Straits Times' newspapers had already identified the alleged victim.
He also questioned why the prosecution did not apply to the court to amend the alleged victim's name in the charge sheet to "Mr X" or "Mr Y" in view of the fact that the sheet would become a public document after that and anyone could obtain it.
Rajasingam said the court should only issue such orders to avoid interference in the administration of justice and not to avoid anyone from embarrassment.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin submitted to the court that the March 24 order was not applicable to media reports before the Rungit case came to court.
Arulldas was charged under Section 101 (2) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 which provides for a maximum fine of RM5,000 or three years in jail, or both, upon conviction.
Arulldas, who was accompanied by Sun Media Group editor-in-chief Ahmad Rejal Arbee, paid his fine.
Copyright(C) 1998 BERNAMA The Malaysian National News Agency
National
Reporter pleads not guilty to defying court order
299 words
27 March 1998
Main/Lifestyle; 2*
12
English
Copyright (c) 1998 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.
PENANG, Thurs. - A reporter with the Sun daily pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court in Butterworth today to a charge of defying a court order stopping the media from publishing the alleged victim's identity in a case involving a Sessions Court Judge.
S. Arulldass, 42, claimed trial to the charge of contravening the Subordinate Courts Act, 1948 (Act 1992) before Judge Tarmizi Abdul Rahman.
On Tuesday, Sungai Petani Sessions Court Judge Ghazali Cha had made the order when another Sessions Court Judge Rungit Singh a/l Jaswant Singh was charged with using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a person.
In the case, Ghazali had invoked section 101 (2) of the Act, to stop the media, both print and electronic, from publishing the alleged victim's name, address, photograph or any information leading to the identification of the alleged victim.
Arulldass was represented by Jagdeep Singh Deo while DPP Yaacob Md Sam prosecuted.
Jagdeep is also one of six lawyers defending Rungit, who is facing three counts of using criminal force to outrage the modesty of the person and two alternative charges of committing an act of gross indecency with a person by performing oral sex.
The five other lawyers are Karpal Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Christopher Fernando, Ranjit Singh Dhillon and Teja Singh Panesar.
Arulldass, who was accompanied by his wife, Theresa, Sun editor Andy Ng, its regional (northern) editor Ng Kee Seng and several colleagues, was alleged to have used words which could identify the victim in the case.
Arulldass, if found guilty, could face a maximum fine of RM5,000 or three years' imprisonment or both.
Tarmizi fixed the case to be mentioned on April 30 and allowed bail at RM5,000.
Caption: Arulldass ... charged.







To be read with:


Saufee Affandi of The Industrial Court and the law he created for Vincent Tan and VK Lingam

Saturday, June 8, 2019

Saufee Affandi of The Industrial Court and the law he created for Vincent Tan and VK Lingam

by Ganesh Sahathevan
The Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd was sold by shareholders who included Berjaya's Vincent Tan Chee Yioun and his lawyer V.K. Lingam to Nexnews Bhd sometime in 2003. One of the conditions imposed on that sale by the Securities Commission Malaysia was that the vendors indemnify Nexnews for any amount of damages awarded by any court against Sun Media Corp in relation to all legal proceedings commenced prior to the completion of the acquisition of Sun Media Corp by Nexnews.

One of those proceedings was the matter of Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd. 
I have referred to this matter and how its management by the Industrial Court, in light of the VK Lingam video, raises questions about the corruption of that court and a former Director-General of the Manpower Department, Zainol Abidin Abdul Rashid.
http://malaysianjudges.blogspot.com/2007/10/will-zainol-abidin-abdul-rashid-step.html


In Award 893 of 2006 , delivered on 22 May 2006, IC chairman Haji Saufee Afandi bin Mohmad found that the sacking of the claimant , Ganesh Sahathevan , a journalist , by his employer, Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd, publisher of THE SUN daily, was just and for proper cause.



The company had sacked the claimant in January 1997 , for writing a
story that the company had published concerning the business dealings
of Datuk Mokzhani Mahathir and a former stock broker from Singapore,
Peter Lim Eng Hock.

The story written was based almost entirely on statements made by
Mokzhani Mahathir.

Peter Lim issued a cease and desist to the Claimant and company in
regards to the story, but not Mohzani Mahathir.

The company immediately sought to apologise to Mr Lim and retract the
story, before it had obtained from Ganesh Sahathevan a written report
regarding his sources and justification for the story.



Subsequently, the company had claimed that Ganesh did not exercise
proper care in writing the story, claiming that the story was false.
The company alleged that legal action had been commenced against it
by Mr Lim as a result of publication of the story, even though no
legal action had been commenced. Ganesh maintained that the story was
accurate, and alleged victimisation on the basis that Berjaya Group
Bhd, then a shareholder of Sun Media Group, was also a party to the
business dealing revealed in the story.Company searches were provided
as evidence of Berjaya's involvement.


In finding for the company , Haji Saufee Afandi held: 

"The Claimant has made issue with the Company's offer to apologize to Peter Lim.I agree with the Company that the offer to apologize is irrelevant to whether or not the dismissal of the Claimant is for just cause or excuse. If the Claimant had indeed written the Peter Lim article negligently ie without proper basis then he has committed a misconduct. That is so whether the Company offered to apologize or not. In fact even if the Company decides to fight the claims and wins based on evidence or fair comment that it obtains subsequently or through other parties still the Claimant is guilty of misconduct if he wrote the article without proper basis. "

The company had relied on a number of defamation cases in its submission. 
Thus, the Industrial Court in this case considered the matter as one of defamation. 

In the words of the learned Chairman:
Although these are defamation cases, they are relevant to guide the Court on the type of justification a journalist must have when he writes an article, especially one that contained allegations which may affect the reputation of the person mentioned . 


The decision opens to the door for plaintiffs in defamation matters another avenue when seeking suppression of stories they are not happy about.
Parties who feel aggrieved by any matter published need not now seek the more legally rigorous and expensive route of an action in defamation, and related interlocutory injunctions. They can now attempt to ensure that the publisher of the article is pressured enough,with the mere threat of an action in defamation, to act against its own journalist,who would be denied the defence of fair comment.

In one fell swoop Saufee Affandi destroyed the centuries old defence of fair comment, quite an amazing feat for a chairman of an Industrial Court, who was formerly a judge in the Sessions Court. Like the case of Vincent Tan v MGG Pillai, this too appears to be a case where the court was prepared to create, re-write the law to suit the plaintiff for reasons best known to the judge concerned.