Justice Ahmad Bache said Nik Suhaimi Ahmad Ghazali had proven his case on a balance of probabilities and ordered that damages be assessed and paid by MACC to him.
The judge also awarded costs of RM40,000 in favour of the plaintiff.
Notwithstanding the decision, Ahmad commended MACC and the police for their commitment to discharging their duty to investigate criminal cases.
However, he said enforcement agencies must give due consideration to the welfare of all persons who are the subject of any investigation.
The judge said anything done outside the legal parameters of their powers and scope of duty may give rise to a civil claim.
He added the court observed that of late certain white-collar suspects, detainees or accused persons have been given extra special treatment, including by not being handcuffed.
“This should not have happened because it has given rise to a legitimate expectation by other similar suspects/accused in white-collar crimes that they, too, are entitled to be accorded the same treatment,” he said when delivering his broad grounds of judgment on Friday.
Ahmad said the court took into account that, unlike a hardcore criminal, the plaintiff under investigation was a “white-collar” suspect and held an important post in a company.
“It will be a gross injustice if the courts were to keep its eyes closed in not making such a distinction. For instance, news about the arrest of a director-general of a government department or a chief executive of a company will be publicly made known due to their positions,” he said.
He said the after-effects would be very damaging as the person would likely lose his job and reputation, which could result in his friends and society shunning him. Worse, the person’s family may also desert him.
According to Ahmad, the court would have to take this into consideration when determining liability and assessing damages.
He said the law of torts permitted such considerations under the “eggshell thin skull rule”, and that doing so does not give rise to a double standard.
However, the judge dismissed Nik Suhaimi’s claim for malicious prosecution under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution. The provision stipulates that no criminal or civil proceeding can be brought against the attorney-general or the public prosecutor, despite the fact that the plaintiff in this case was acquitted of all charges without defence called.
On March 19, 2014, the plaintiff presented himself at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya. He was produced in the Kuantan sessions court the following day and charged with four counts of bribery.
Ahmad said though the plaintiff filed a suit for false imprisonment, the proper claim should be under the head of abuse of process or malicious process, which includes wrongful detention.
He said the claim would arise if a legal process has been perverted to satisfy some other motive, for example by oppression to satisfy the tortfeasor’s objective.
Ahmad said from the evidence presented, the plaintiff was handcuffed tightly as though he was a hardcore criminal, adding that this was a form of oppression.
The judge said due to the plaintiff’s abrupt arrest on March 19, he was unable to leave for Chennai, India, resulting in the loss of business opportunities.
“This court rules that, (although legal), his arrest, detention and being charged on March 20, 2014, (had attracted) adverse publicity (which) was very damaging to his life as a businessman and his reputation,” he said.
Ahmad said the court had the opportunity to view video footage recorded by a television station and aired on a primetime news slot that evening, where he was deliberately paraded around the court lobby after he was charged.
He said the print media had on the next day reported the news prominently, which included displaying a photograph of the plaintiff being handcuffed.
“As a result, he experienced depressive symptoms – loss of mood, sleep loss (insomnia), poor appetite, lethargy, withdrawal symptoms, persistent worries regarding the loss of business, and his mind was consistently preoccupied with worries about his trial and the possible consequences if he was found guilty,” he added.
Ahmad also found that the plaintiff’s wife and children left him and that he was also declared bankrupt due to losses in his business.