Judgment

Arulanandom J

1. This was an application by the applicant for an order in the following terms:–

   (a)	A declaration that all information recorded under s 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 6) are public documents;
   (b)	A declaration that the police report lodged by the rider of motorcycle No KH 8909 on 6 January 1979 at Telok Ayer Tawar Police Station is a public document;
   (c)	A declaration that the applicant has a right to inspect the report of the rider of motorcycle No KH 8909 and to a copy thereof on payment of fees;
   (d)	Costs.

   The person cited as respondent was the Chief District Police, Butterworth.

2. According to the affidavit filed in support of the application sworn to on 23 November 1979, the applicant was involved in a road accident on the Butterworth-Sungai Petani Road on 6 January 1979 when a motorcycle KH 8909 coming from the opposite direction encroached onto his path and collided into him. As a result of the accident he suffered serious injuries and had commenced legal proceedings through his solicitors against the rider of the motorcycle for damages.

3. His solicitors applied to the Chief District Police, Butterworth, for “all the police reports, sketch-plan and key and photographs taken in connection with the aforesaid accident” and the Chief District Police, Butterworth, supplied them with all the relevant documents except the police report made by the rider of motorcycle No KH 8909 which had collided into the applicant. To subsequent requests by the applicant’s solicitor for a copy of the said report the Chief District Police, Butterworth, replied that he could not supply the report because the maker of that report was not a client of the applicant’s solicitor. The applicant now comes to court for an order to compel the Chief District Police, Butterworth, to supply him with the said report as he requires it to process his claim for damages against the rider of motorcycle No. KH 8909.

4. At the outset, counsel for respondent conceded that the police report concerned was a public document.

5. The question of accessibility of third parties to police reports not made by them was considered in depth by the Federal Court in the case of Anthony Gomez v Chief District Police, Kuantan [1977] 2 MLJ 24. The arguments were considered in full in that case and it would be superfluous for me to repeat them in this judgment. Suffice it to quote Suffian LP in delivering the judgment of the court, when he said:

   From the above we would deduce the law to be as follows: though our s 76 (of the Evidence Act) is silent as to the right of the applicant to inspect the first information report in question, it is clear that under the common law he has that right, as he is a person interested in it and inspection is necessary for the protection of his interest. This first information report is admissible in evidence in the criminal trial against him under s 157 of the Evidence Act and therefore the applicant or his counsel should be supplied a copy. If a certified copy of the first information report in question is supplied to the applicant, it is admissible in evidence under s 77 of the Evidence Act. What was then the point of adding s 108A Criminal Procedure Code in 1936? The learned judge who considered this action thought that the point was that the legislature had never intended that a person such as the applicant should have a right of inspection under s 76 of the Evidence Act. With respect it would appear to us that in 1936 the legislature overlooked the fact that under the common law such a person already had that right, as was declared as long ago as in the year 1888 in Mutter (Mutter v Eastern and Midlands Railways Co LR 38 Ch D 92).

6. Anthony Gomez’ case was one where he was charged with the offence of criminal intimidation of one V Bernard Vas under s 506 of the Penal Code and suspecting that the charge was based on a report by the said V Bernard Vas, his solicitor wrote to the police for a copy of the report Bernard Vas made to the police under s 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The police refused and hence his application to court.

7. The respondents in the case before the court are of the view that Anthony Gomez’ case has no relevance here as the applicant is seeking a police report made by another person for the purpose of civil proceedings, and not for the purpose of defending himself in criminal proceedings. This notion is completely devoid of merit.

8. As Suffian LP said in the Anthony Gomez’case.

   In our judgment the applicant has a right to inspect the first information report and therefore the OCPD should have given him a certified true copy. The applicant has a right to inspect the first information report under the common law because of his interest in it.

9. The operative words are “because of his interest in it.” “His interest” is not qualified or limited to matters where he is involved in criminal prosecution. He has just as much interest in police reports made by third parties which may be defamatory, false or imputing negligence on the highway, lack of due care and consideration, breach of statutory duty, etc. And a person who seeks to establish negligence on the part of someone who collided into him has a legitimate interest in knowing what the other person’s version of the accident as given in his police report is.

10. In Earl Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law, a public document is defined as “a document made for the purpose of the public making use of it.” And that is exactly what police reports under s 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code are. If the right of the public to have access to public documents is to be limited or curtailed, then the legislature would have expressly so stated or it must be established that it is contrary to public interest. In the absence of such limitations, public documents must be treated as “public documents.”

11. In the reasons stated above the application was allowed with costs.

Cases

Anthony Gomez v Ketua Police Daerah, Kuantan [1977] 2 MLJ 24

Representations

V Muthusamy (M/s V Muthusamy & Co) for the applicant.

M Pathmanathan (Federal Counsel) for the respondent.

Notes:-

This decision is also reported at [1981] 2 MLJ 272