The High Court ruled today that PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim’s previous convictions cannot be considered when deciding the quantum of damages in the suit he won against Utusan Malaysia .

Justice Hue Siew Kheng, who made the decision, said she did not think it was correct, by virtue, to rely on particular acts of the plaintiff (Anwar).

“I am bound by this decision that the evidence of previous convictions is not permissible,” Justice Hue told the court in Kuala Lumpur today.

Utusan ’s lawyer, Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, had on Tuesday submitted that previous convictions could be raised when deciding on the assessment of damages to show the bad character of the claimant.

Firoz argued that the court should take into consideration that evidence of a previous conviction is part of the argument to affect the general reputation of a person and therefore could be used in the assessment of damages.

Today, in seeking more time for his team to prepare the submissions, Firoz was told by Justice Hue that the case was long overdue.

“Cross examination is over,” she said curtly.

The judge then fixed Oct 19 to decide on the quantum of damages.

Not true representation of BBC interview

Anwar’s lawyer Latheefa Koya later told reporters that her team would therefore preparing its submissions.

“The court will assess the evidence and decide on the damages on Oct 19. We will be preparing our submissions,” Latheefa said.

Anwar won his suit against Utusan and its chief editor Abdul Aziz Ishak, following the daily's publication citing the former opposition leader's interview with the BBC two years ago, that he allegedly supported lesbians, gay, transexual and bisexuals.

However it was decided this was not a true representation of the BBC interview.

That judgment was delivered two years ago by Justice VT Singham ( photo ), who ordered the damages to be assessed later. This was done by Justice Hue.

Anwar’s lawyer N Surendran said there was one decision by the High Court and two by the Court of Appeal to support the argument that previous convictions could not be raised in assessing damages, adding that this was not provided for in Malaysia under Section 55 of the Evidence Act.