858 SINGAPORE LAW REPORTS (REISSUE) (1996) 2sLR(R) Zainal bin Kuning and others v Chan Sin Mian Michael and another [1996] sGca 47 Court of Appeal — Civil Appeal No 137 of 1995 M Kantigesu JA, LP Thean JA and Goh Joon Seng} 20,21 May; 23 August 1996 Tort — False imprisonment — Arrest — Appellants not handeuffed or restrained — Appellants compelled to accompany police officers — Whether appellants arrested Tort — Fase imprisonment — Wrong arrest — Appellants arrested on suspicion of having committed offence — Appellonts arrested by police officer — Whether police officer having credible information or reasonable suspicion justifying arrest — Section 32(1(a) Criminal Procedure Code (Cup 68,1985 Rev Ed) Tort — Malicious prosecution — Elements of the tort — Appellants arrested on suspicion of having committed offence — Appellants subsequently found 10 be innocent of offence in question — Whether appellants prosecuted without reasonable or probable cause — Whether appellants’ prosecution motivated by malice Facts ‘The appellants sued the respondents for false arrest and malicious prosecution. ‘The first respondent was the police officer in charge of investigations against the accused while the second respondent was joined to represent the Government. ‘The appellants had been arrested and charged with the murder of one Ang. Subsequently, one Sulaiman was charged and convicted of the murder. ‘The appellants thus brought claims for: (a) false arrest; and (b) malicious prosecution. The trial judge held that the appellants had not been arrested at the limes when they were called to accompany the police officers, such that no false arrest of false imprisonment could arise. The tral judge further held that there Jhad been reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. He thus dismissed both claims. The appellants appealed. (On appeal, the appellants reiterated their claims for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The appellants also took issue with the trial judge's refusal to: (a) grant their application for the discovery of certain documents reflecting communications between the first respondent and the deputy public prosecutor, (b) expunge the statements of one Abdul Hannan; and (c) allow certain persons to give evidence. Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) ‘The trial judge was fully justified in refusing discovery of the documents in question. Besides the fact that case law did not support the discovery of the documents, the documents were protected by privilege. The documents were ‘communications made by one public officer to another in the discharge of theit