Ex-AG Tommy Thomas fails to strike out suit over malicious prosecution
Former attorney-general Tommy Thomas and 12 other defendants have been ordered to file their defence within 14 days.
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here has dismissed an application by former attorney-general (AG) Tommy Thomas and 12 others to strike out a suit for misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution.
Judge Ahmad Bache said this was not a fit and proper case to annul the suit brought by former Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) director N Sundra Rajoo.
“This is not a straightforward case. It is a contentious case and there are many issues of law and facts to be tried,” the judge said in his ruling delivered online.
Ahmad also ordered Thomas and the other defendants to pay RM10,000 in costs to Sundra.
He also directed the defendants to file their defence within 14 days from today.
A case management will be held on Sept 27.
Sundra filed claims last October over false imprisonment, breach of constitutional rights and conspiracy to injure through unlawful means.
Also named as plaintiffs were former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Mohamad Shukri Abdull, several MACC officers and deputy public prosecutors.
In his application to annul the suit last November, Thomas said he had considered all evidence against Sundra before pressing criminal breach of trust (CBT) charges against him in 2019.
He said he had applied his mind “honestly and to the best of my ability” and affirmed that his former deputy public prosecutors had a strong case to convict Sundra.
Thomas, who was a lawyer before he was appointed AG in 2018, said for Sundra to claim immunity from prosecution would put him solely on a level above the 32 million citizens.
Ahmad also allowed Sundra’s application to expunge two paragraphs in Thomas’ affidavit to strike out the suit as it was “scandalous, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive”.
The judge ordered Thomas to pay another RM2,000 in costs to Sundra.
Lawyers Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, A Surendra Ananth, Khoo Suk Chyi, TJ Lee and Cheok Wei Chin represented Sundra.
Senior federal counsel Andi Razalijaya A Dadi and federal counsels Ashraf Abd Hamid and Muhairi Mohamed Noh appeared for the defendants.
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here has dismissed an application by former attorney-general (AG) Tommy Thomas and 12 others to strike out a suit for misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution.
Judge Ahmad Bache said this was not a fit and proper case to annul the suit brought by former Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) director N Sundra Rajoo.
“This is not a straightforward case. It is a contentious case and there are many issues of law and facts to be tried,” the judge said in his ruling delivered online.
Ahmad also ordered Thomas and the other defendants to pay RM10,000 in costs to Sundra.
He also directed the defendants to file their defence within 14 days from today.
A case management will be held on Sept 27.
Sundra filed claims last October over false imprisonment, breach of constitutional rights and conspiracy to injure through unlawful means.
Also named as plaintiffs were former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Mohamad Shukri Abdull, several MACC officers and deputy public prosecutors.
In his application to annul the suit last November, Thomas said he had considered all evidence against Sundra before pressing criminal breach of trust (CBT) charges against him in 2019.
He said he had applied his mind “honestly and to the best of my ability” and affirmed that his former deputy public prosecutors had a strong case to convict Sundra.
Thomas, who was a lawyer before he was appointed AG in 2018, said for Sundra to claim immunity from prosecution would put him solely on a level above the 32 million citizens.
Ahmad also allowed Sundra’s application to expunge two paragraphs in Thomas’ affidavit to strike out the suit as it was “scandalous, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive”.
The judge ordered Thomas to pay another RM2,000 in costs to Sundra.
Lawyers Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, A Surendra Ananth, Khoo Suk Chyi, TJ Lee and Cheok Wei Chin represented Sundra.
Senior federal counsel Andi Razalijaya A Dadi and federal counsels Ashraf Abd Hamid and Muhairi Mohamed Noh appeared for the defendants.
"malicious prosecution" is exactly what it says...prosecution made with deliberate malicious intent, and is very difficult to prove in court. ,
ReplyDeleteAs it should be , because the Construction and law gives the Attorney General wide discretionary powers to prosecute or not to prosecute.
My lawyer friends who have practiced for decades can't recall a single case where such a litigation has succeeded.
Erroneous prosecution is a different matter, for sure, mistakes do get made.