JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1] The short legal question that arises in this appeal is whether absolute privilege should be extended to the defamatory statements contained in a police report lodged by a police officer under s 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("CPC") for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings against him under the Public Officer (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 ("Regulations 1993").

[2] The courts below opined that the ambit of absolute privilege should not be extended for such purpose. For the reasons set out later in this judgment, we agree with the decisions of the courts below.

The Outline Facts

[3] The appellant was, until his dismissal on 18 August 2015, a police man with the Royal Malaysia Police ("RMP") for 27 years.

[4] A show cause letter dated 12 September 2013 was issued to the appellant informing that the 2nd respondent had decided to pursue disciplinary proceedings against him pursuant to reg 37 of the Regulations 1993, with a view to dismiss or reduce in rank. There were 12 charges preferred against the appellant:

(i) The 1st to 9th charges were in respect of the appellants failure to report physically to the battalion chief;

(ii) The 10th charge was in respect of the appellants police report dated 27 August 2012 for which the appellant had insulted the Inspector General of Police ("IGP");

(iii) The 11th charge was in respect of the appellants statements for which he had insinuated that the IGP was in good terms with the Bridge Commander and any reports made against him would have no effect (tidak akan membawa kesan); and

(iv) The 12th charge was that the appellants conduct had adversely tarnished the image of the public service.

[5] The appellant had responded to the show-cause letter vide his letter dated 31 December 2013.