Rewcastle-Brown fails top court bid to refer legality of criminal defamation
Sarawak Report editor Clare Rewcastle-Brown has failed in her bid to get the Federal Court to look into the validity of the criminal defamation provision used against her.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled that it was "premature" to refer her constitutional questions to the Federal Court before deciding on her application to transfer her criminal defamation case from the lower court in Kuala Terengganu to the Kuala Lumpur High Court...
Sarawak Report editor Clare Rewcastle-Brown has failed in her bid to get the Federal Court to look into the validity of the criminal defamation provision used against her.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled that it was "premature" to refer her constitutional questions to the Federal Court before deciding on her application to transfer her criminal defamation case from the lower court in Kuala Terengganu to the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
In his ruling, judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan explained that Rewcastle-Brown’s application under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 only concerns High Court proceedings.
“The court has not yet decided whether to allow the case against the applicant to be transferred to the Kuala Lumpur High Court. In layman’s terms, the applicant’s application is still in transit.
“... Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act will only apply if the proceedings concerned have been registered in the High Court,” he said.
Section 84 states that where any proceedings in the High Court raise questions on a constitutional provision, the judge may refer it to the Federal Court.
Zaini said that Rewcastle-Brown was at liberty to make the same application if her case got successfully transferred.
The judge added that he had not considered the merits of Rewcastle-Brown’s application when coming to this conclusion.
On March 28, Claire submitted an application to the Kuala Lumpur High Court seeking to refer to the Federal Court on whether Sections 499 and 500 of the Penal Code were constitutional and could be enforced in criminal proceedings.
Section 499 provides for criminal defamation and if found guilty, the individual will be charged under Section 500 which carries imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
This follows a criminal defamation case against Rewcastle-Brown over her book "The Sarawak Report - The inside story of 1MDB", which mentioned the Terengganu Sultanah, Sultanah Nur Zahirah.
Her application also sought to transfer the criminal defamation case from the Terengganu Magistrates Court to the Kuala Lumpur High Court, citing the need for a fair hearing without unwarranted influence being exerted.
She also sought to quash the criminal defamation charge against her on the basis that it was conducted in bad faith, malicious and was an abuse of the court’s process and prosecutorial powers.
Separate civil suit
Previously, Rewcastle-Brown was charged in absentia with the criminal defamation charge on Sept 23 last year, the editor already has a related ongoing civil action for defamation against her instituted by the Terengganu Sultanah.
The civil suit over defamation, pending before the Kuala Lumpur High Court, was also in relation to the same book.
Concerning the separate civil action for defamation, the Kuala Lumpur High Court was initially scheduled to hear the lawsuit for four days beginning Dec 15 last year.
However, the hearing was vacated after Rewcastle-Brown filed an application to stay the civil proceedings, pending disposal of the criminal case against her.
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.