Court Ticks Off NST Over Report

(Bernama) PUTRAJAYA, April 16 -- Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi Wednesday ticked off the New Straits Times in open court over the publication of an article, alleging that last week's Conference of Malaysian Judges had proposed that judges writing quality judgments would be given bonuses.Expressing disappointment, Zaki said the article published in the newspaper on Monday (April 14) was unfair to Chief Justice Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad and also to all judges, as that matter was neither mentioned at the conference nor outside the conference.Zaki made the remark at the hearing of a case in the Federal Court involving former NST journalist Joceline Tan Poh Choo, its group editor and publisher, New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd who are being sued by a lawyer for libel.The article entitled "Government mulls judgment bonus" stated that the proposal for bonuses was made at the annual Conference of Malaysian Judges held last week, intended for judges without any outstanding written judgment.The report also quoted Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Zaid Ibrahim as saying that the government would be willing to consider a review of judges's basic salaries.Yesterday, Abdul Hamid had denied the report, clarifying that there was no proposal or discussion for bonuses and that the report was untrue and baseless.Zaki said the newspaper had published the article writing about things that did not take place, with a big headline but only published a "correction" the next day, in a small column which could hardly be seen by the people (readers).Following his remarks, counsel J. A. Yeoh representing NST in the defamation suit against Joceline and two others, tendered the newspaper's apology in the court to the judiciary, on behalf of his client.Zaki was heading a three-men bench comprising Federal Court judges Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman and Datuk S. Augustine Paul in a proceeding brought by Tan and two others who were seeking to review a Federal Court decision, ordering that their (Tan and two others) appeal be re-heard by a new panel.On Sept 14, last year, a five-men Federal Court panel set aside the Federal Court's May 13, 2005 decision favouring Tan and two others, after ruling that it (May 13, 2005 decision) was unjust.The Federal Court had allowed lawyer Datuk V. Mutusamy's application to review the decision as it held that the case warranted a re-hearing because in a previous hearing, it (Federal Court) had made a conflicting decision.The Federal Court on May 13, 2005 exempted Tan and two others from paying compensation to Muthusamy who sued them over a defamatory article entitled "Lawyer and Trader Conspired To Cheat Me, Claims Driver" published in the newspaper on Sept 12, 1991.The High Court, on Nov 10, 2000 had allowed Muthusamy's claim and ordered Tan and two others to pay him RM300,000 in general damages and RM50,000 in aggravated damages after ruling that they had failed to prove that the report was fair, accurate and contemporaneous.The three appealed to the Court of Appeal on liability and quantum while Muthusamy, cross-appealed on the quantum.On Aug 1, 2003, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on liability but reduced the general damages to RM100,000 and set aside the RM50,000 awarded as aggravated damages.In Wednesday's proceeding, Yeoh agreed to withdraw the review application following Zaki's earlier advice to the counsel to make submission at the re-hearing of the appeal.The court then struck off the application with costs.Zaki said the Federal Court panel presiding Wednesday could not reverse its earlier decision ordering the appeal to be re-heard before another panel because it (the court) was not the appellate body to the Federal Court panel which had ordered the appeal to be reheard.