TY  - JOUR
TT  - RECEPTION OF DERBYSHIRE PRINCIPLE RELATING TO SUIT FOR DEFAMATION BY CENTRAL OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT BODIES: THE AMBIVALENCE OF MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY
AU  - Haji Yaakob, Adnan
AU  - Shair Mohamed, Mohd Akram
AU  - Ali Mohamed, Ashgar Ali
PY  - 2016
DA  - December
DO  - 10.18769/ijasos.99526
JF  - IJASOS- International E-journal of Advances in Social Sciences
JO  - IJASOS
PB  - OCERINT International Organization Center of Academic Research
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 2411-183X
SP  - 691
EP  - 697
VL  - 2
IS  - 6
KW  - Defamation
KW  - Derbyshire principle
KW  - Central or local government bodies
N2  - The defamation rule applies to all plaintiffs regardless of theirnature, including cooperation. However,an important dent to this rule was made in the seminal case of Derbyshire CountyCouncil v Times Newspapers Ltdand others[1993] AC 534, by the United Kingdom House of Lordsthat on the grounds of public interest in the freedom of expression, the courtswill not allow free speech to be fettered, by permitting government bodies,whether local or central, to sue for libel. Essentially, the Derbyshire principle lays down thatunder the common law, government bodies, whether central or local, do not havethe right to maintain an action for damages for defamation as it would becontrary to the public interest for the organs of government (whether centralor local) to have that right because it is of the highest importance that agovernment body should be open to uninhibited public criticism, and the rightto sue for defamation would not only have a chilling effect but would alsoplace an undesirable fetter on the freedom of speech. In the context ofMalaysia, the Malaysian judiciary have so far displayed an ambivalent responseto the reception of the common law principle laid down in Derbyshire Country Council. Some of the courts of first instancehave accepted the principle while others have refused to receive the rule. TheMalaysian Court of Appeal – through at least two cases - have displayed equalambivalence to the reception of this common law rule. While one Court of Appealjudgment appears to have openly embraced the rule, the Court of Appeal in arecent judgment by a majority have refused to adopt the principle on the cogentground that Malaysia has two statutory provisions which expressly allow a localor central governing body to sue for defamation, which the common law embodiedin Derbyshire cannot abrogate. Inlight of the foregoing, this paper argues that the Federal Court, the apexcourt in Malaysia, should decide this critical issue and not let uncertainty inthe law prevail. The paper seeks to persuade that while the common law can beabrogated by statute either expressly or by necessary implication, the commonlaw cannot abrogate statutory provisions. Further, while freedom of expressionis an important safeguard, it may be more rigorously applied in mature and welldeveloped societies. The primacy of freedom of expression in preventinggovernmental authorities from suing for defamation may not be a suitable orvalid justification in the context of local political situation in Malaysia,where too much freedom of the press with ethical codes not similar to those inthe developed democracies, may endanger the reputation of governmental bodies,if freedom of expression were allowed free reign.
CR  - Barendt, E. (1993). Libel and Freedom of Speech in English Law. Public Law 449.
CR  - Descheemaeker, E. (2009). Protecting Reputation: Defamation and Negligence. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies vol. 29.
CR  - Trindade, F.A. (2000). Defamatory Statements and Political Discussion. Law Quarterly Review vol.116.
CR  - William, K. (2003). Defaming Politicians: The Not So Common Law. Modern Law Review vol. 63.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.18769/ijasos.99526
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/261804
ER  -