SUB JUDICE AND GAG ORDER: THE RECENT DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIA

Abstract

High profile court cases always attracted media attention for public interest purposes. As a liaison between the court and the public, the media broadcast or report the case on their media channels and newspapers. From these broadcast and reports, the public receives sufficient information for them to formulate a certain opinion. Those who believe that they understand more would advocate their stance openly, usually comments through social media or actual publishers. However, many are not aware of the existence of a sub judice rule that prevents anyone from publishing any statement about the ongoing trial. This sub judice rule is imposed to avoid disruption of court proceedings and to avoid "trials by the media". In such circumstances, the parties to the suit usually apply for a committal order for contempt of court for breaching the sub judice rule. Alternatively, they apply for a gag order to stop anyone from publishing about the case. However, the court will only grant or reject the application for the gag order after examining and considering certain factors as enunciated in the case of Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v Public Prosecutor which has been applied in the case of Public Prosecutor v Arumugam a/l Dorasamy. This paper adopts doctrinal legal research methodology with case analysis approach. It delves into the analysis of the court’s decisions on the standards and tests laid down and evaluates the impacts on future cases. At the end of the analysis, it is established that the case of Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v Public Prosecutor has become the benchmark and precedent for all future gag-order applications. The outcome of this analysis is important to chart the application of the sub judice rule and a gag order in Malaysia.