Main Article Content
The High Court in Vasanta a/l Amarasekera v PP has decided that an accused person can be supplied with statements made by witnesses to the police during the investigation process, who are not called by the prosecution and subsequently offered to the defence. The importance of this case is that the High Court has the benefit of analysing two recent conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal on this issue. First, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Siti Aisyah v PP in 2019 which ruled that the statements are not absolutely privileged. In so doing, the Court did not follow the earlier decision of the Federal Court in Husdi v PP in 1980, which declared the statements as absolutely privileged. The second is the Court of Appeal’s decision in 2022 in the case of Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v PP where it stated that it is bound by the decision of the Federal Court in Husdi’s case. This case commentary critically analyses the rationale behind the High Court’s decision in following Siti Aisyah’s case, thus, making it as a new addition to the list of recent Malaysian courts which have decided that such statements are not absolutely privileged.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Chris Christian & Ors v PP  MLJU 1916 (High Court)
Dallison v Caffery  2 All ER 610 (CA)
Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v PP  1 MLJ 137 (Court of Appeal)
Husdi v PP  2 MLJ 304 (High Court)
Husdi v PP  2 MLJ 80 (Federal Court)
PP v Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim (No 3)  2 MLJ 1 (High Court)
Siti Aisyah v PP  4 MLJ 49 (Court of Appeal)
Vasanta a/l Amarasekera v PP  9 MLJ 940 (High Court)