LAW035

PI007K01
CASE STUDY (QUESTION 2)
TOPIC : REVENGE PORNOGRAPHY

PREPARED FOR : MADAM NORSYAZRAH BINTI ZULKIFLI

PREPARED BY :
NUR AQILAH SYAFIQAH SYAFIQAH BINTI AHMAD NAZRI 2023842574
TUAN SARAH ZAHRAA BINTI TUAN ZAMRI 2023668168
ANIS ADLIN BINTI SANUSI 2023661008
CASANDRA JUASIM 2023642064

DATE OF PRESENTATION:
9 OCTOBER 2023
 LAW035

cASE STUDY
 gROUP MEMBERS

NUR AQILAH CASANDRA TUAN SARAH ANIS ADLIN

SYAFIQAH JUASIM ZAHRAA
STUDENT ID : STUDENT ID : STUDENT ID : STUDENT ID :
2023842574 2023642064 2023668168 2023661008
 MATERIAL FACTS
Brian secretly recorded Amanda while she was taking a shower without her consent, a
violation of her privacy and she discovered the recording and requested Brian to
delete the picture which he initially agreed not to share them with others.

Despite Brian’s promise, they later had a conflict and decided to break up. However,
he threatened to escalate and share the private pictures of Amanda on social media if
they break up.

Brian posted the private pictures of her on various social media along with derogatory
and hurtful captions and comments. Subsequently, Amanda suffered depression as a
result of the invasion of her privacy, the betrayal of trust, and the public humiliation
caused by the distribution of her private pictures and hurtful on social media.
 LEGAL ISSUES

Whether the action of

Whether Brian has Brian uploading Whether the action of
committed section 509 Amanda’s picture of Brian threatening
of the Penal Code for taking a shower can be Amanda to spread her
degrading a woman considered as crime of pictures if they broke up
when he wrote and misusing the network can be considered as
implied that Amanda is crime of criminal
a bitch. intimidation.
 AREAS OF LAW iNVOLVED IN THE CASE
CRIMINAL LAW

i) Section 503 of Penal Code.

Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any
one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act
which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Based on this case, the action of Brian threatening to upload the pictures of Amanda showering in social media can be
considered as a wrong doing under Section 503 of the Penal Code.

ii) Section 509 of Penal Code.

Any person who insults the modesty of any woman by word, through sound, gesture or exhibits any object
intentionally, shall be punished for a term which may extend to five years or be fined or both.
The action of Brian calling Amanda a bitch is considered as insulting the modesty of a woman by word under
Section 509 of the Penal Code.
iii) Section 233 of Communication & Multimedia Act.
Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act stipulates offences of using
network facilities to transmit communication deemed to be offensive or could
cause annoyance to another person. An offence under the section is punishable
with up to one-year imprisonment, a fine up to RM50,000, or both, upon conviction.
Based on this case,the said pictures was spreaded thru the internet , for this action ,
brian has commited the crime of misusing the network under this act
iv) Section 500 of Penal Code
Whoever defames another shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
Based on this case, the action of Brian spreading the picture on social
media causes the bad comments made by netizens againts Amanda by
saying she is a slut and gold digger.Thus,this is considered defamation.
 PRIMARY SOURCES:
. LEGISLATION

SECTION 509 OF THE

PENAL CODE
1 2
Whoever, intending to insult In this case, Brian can be
the modesty of any person, accused of wrongfully
utters any word, makes any uploading Amanda’s picture of
sound or gesture, or exhibits her taking a shower without
any object, intending that her consent.
such word or sound shall be
heard, or that such gesture or
object shall be seen by such
person, or intrudes upon the
privacy of such person, shall
be punished with
imprisonment for a term
which may extend to five
years or with fine or with both
 . JUDICIAL PRECEDENT
Maslinda bt Ishak v Mohd Tahir bin Osman & Ors [2009] 6 MLJ 826

With this source, the area of law is the same which

involves tort of invasion of privacy. Appellant’s request
to ease herself was denied and was told to do it in the
truck. The appellant asked her friends to shield her from
the view of others in the truck by encircling her with a
shawl.The appellant pleaded that the officers had
negligently failed to protect her well being by allowing
the first respondent to snap the photographs of her
urinating inside the truck.The appeal was allowed with
costs.According to Amanda and Brian case,where Brian
uploaded Amanda’s picture of her taking a shower
without her consent.This action can be sued by Amanda.
 SECONDARY SOURCES
. LEGAL PERIODICAL (MALAYAN LAW
JOURNAL)
The premise and conditions of Amanda and Brian’s case are identical to one
reported in the specified legal periodical which is:
Lee Ewe Poh v Dr Lim Teik Man & Anor [2011] 1 MLJ 835

Having evaluated all The plaintiff's claim is

evidence before this court,
The plaintiff claimed
there is no doubt that in
that the first defendant
order for the surgeon to
was not entitled to take
take photographs of a
the two photographs
female patient's intimate
showing her anus ('the
parts of her anatomy as in
photographs') without
this case, the proper
her prior knowledge procedure to adopt is to
and consent obtain her prior consent
whether it is written or
oral.
allowed and awarded
nominal damages against
the defendants in the sum
of RM25,000 with costs of
RM10,000. As the memory
card containing the two
offending photographs has
been produced to the court,
It is ordered that this
memory card is to be
destroyed by the deputy
registrar of this court
 . LEGAL ENCYCLOPEDIA
HALSBURY’S LAW OF MALAYSIA-
TORT (VOLUME 13(2))

Infringement of privacy.
The law on invasion of privacy is developing in Malaysia
although limited to matters involving private morality
and modesty.
A claim for invasion of privacy was allowed in a case of
taking photographs of a female patient’s intimate parts
by her surgeon.
It is from the case of Lee Ewe Poh v Dr Lim Teik Man &
Anor [2011] 1 MLJ 835 which the plaintiff's claim was
allowed and awarded nominal damages against the
defendants in the sum of RM25,000 with costs of
RM10,000.
In Amanda and Brian’s case,this tort is able to be used as
Brian secretly records Amanda during her shower and
refused to delete the said pictures.
Maslinda bt Ishak v Mohd Tahir bin
Osman & Ors [2009] 6 MLJ 826
AT 11.30 P.M. ON 21 MARCH 2003, THE APPELANT WAS
CAUGHT AT KELAB DE VEGAS AT JALAN IMBI, KUALA
LUMPUR IN A JOINT OPERATION BY THE
RESPONDENTS
THE APPELANT WITH SOME OTHER PEOPLE WERE
PUT IN A TRUCK AND DRIVEN OFF TO TAMAN
MALURI,CHERAS.
ON THE WAY, THE APPELANT HAD REQUESTED FROM
THE RESPONDENTS PERMISSION TO USE THE TOILET
BUT WAS DISALLOWED AND TOLD TO URINATE IN THE
TRUCK.
THE APPELLANT PLEADED THAT HER PRIVACY HAD
BEEN INVADED,RESULTING IN HER HUMILIATION AND
TRAUMA.
SHE PLEADED THAT THE RESPONDENTS AT THE TIME,
HAD NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROTECT HER WELL-
BEING, BY ALLOWING THE DEFENDANT TO SNAP THOSE
PHOTOGRAPHS.
THUS,SHE APPEALED FOR GENERAL DAMAGES IN THE
SUM OF RM100,000 FROM THE FIRST DEFENDANT AND
THE RESPONDENTS.

THEN, SHE ASKED HER FRIENDS TO ENCIRCLE HER THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED WITH COST.
WITH A SHAWL IN ORDER TO EASE HERSELF.

AT THAT MOMENT, THE DEFENDANT SUDDENLY

OPENED THE DOOR OF THE TRUCK,PULLED DOWN
THE SHAWL AND TOOK NUMEROUS PICTURES OF THE
APPELLANT IN A SQUATTING POSITION ,URINATING.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The first respondent was a member of RELA (Angkatan Relawan Rakyat
Malaysia), the second respondent, the Director General of RELA, the third
respondent, the Director of the Jabatan Islam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala
Lumpur (‘JAWI’) and the fourth respondent, the Government of Malaysia.
The appellant was arrested in a joint operation by the officers of the
second and third respondents. Enroute to Taman Maluri, Cheras the
appellant requested permission from the officers attached to the second
and third respondents to use the toilet facility. Her request was denied.

The learned High Court judge found that the first respondent together
with several other members of RELA who participated in the operation
carried out by JAWI, did so in their official capacity but the first
respondent was never ordered to photograph any person arrested.The
learned High Court further opined that the act of taking pictures of the
appellant urinating was not part of the duty of the first respondent.
History of the case
The appellant was arrested at the Kelab De Vegas at Jalan Imbi,
Kuala Lumpur in a joint operation by officers of the second and
21 march 2003 third respondents.

Maslinda binti Ishak had filed a civil suit against Mohamad Tahir Osman,
RELA, JAWI and the Malaysian Government, claiming negligence on the
25 april 2003 part of the defendants and seeking damages..

Maslinda binti Ishak filed a revision application in the High Court of

Malaya in Kuala Lumpur. In her application she is seeking for a revision
19 may 2003 of the four months sentence that was imposed on Mohamad Tahir
Osman.

JAWI served a notice on Maslinda binti Ishak to be investigated for the

20 may 2003 two cases: abetting in the sale and purchase of alcohol and in
encouraging vice.

the defendant was ordered by (JAWI) to appear at the Enforcement and

Prosecution Office, to give evidence in accordance with the Syariah
10 june 2003 Criminal Procedure Act (Wilayah Persekutuan) 1997. The defendant was
questioned for three and half hours by the Religious Enforcement
Officers.
 Whether Maslinda bt Ishak has satisfied
the preliminary matters required to take
a legal action against Mohd Tahir bin
Osman & Ors

Whether the second, third and fourth

respondents are vicariously liable for the
action of the first respondent

Whether the action of first

respondent in taking the photographs
of appelant urinating in the course of
his duty
 RATIO Maslinda bt Ishak may file a suit against Mohd
Tahir & Ors. because there is a complete cause of

DECIDENDI action.The first respondent were instructed by the

third respondent to control the people that have
been arrested.
However, the first respondent took photographs
of appellant urinating in the truck that were not a
part of his duty.
As a result the appellant pleaded that her privacy
had been invaded, resulting in her humiliation,
trauma and serious mental anguish. As Maslinda
bt Ishak has done the complete cause of action
she may file a suit against the second, third and
fourth respondents for being vicariously liable.
 RATIO The action of the first defendant taking the
photograph of the appellant urinating was not part of

DECIDENDI
his duty instructed by the second and third
respondent.
However, the act of taking the photographs occurred
when the said operation was still in progress and
therefore, the second and third respondent should be
equally vicariously liable.
This is because, to be held liable for the negligent act
of its officer, there must be proceedings against the
officer personally.In this case, section 5 and section 6
of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 had been
complied with, in that there were proceedings against
the first defendant.
Hence, respondents must jointly and severally bear
the burden of the first defendant’s liability.
 RATIO The first respondent was never ordered
to take any photos of the person
DECIDENDI arrested and he took the photos with his
own camera.
The action of taking the appellant’s
picture urinating was not part of the first
respondent’s duties and the action was
by his own frolic.
In short,The act of taking the
photographs occurred when the said
operation was still in progress and
therefore, the respondents should be
equally vicariously liable.
COURT DECISION
The learned High Court stated that the first
respondent is accordingly sentenced to four
months jail and the total cost of
RM 100,000.The first defendant will be
vicariously liable, jointly and severally by all
the respondents.
As per trite law, when an agent's wrongful act
causes injury or loss to a third person , his
principal is jointly and severally liable with
him.
 REFERENCES

1. Mohd Nor Afandi bin Mohamed Junus v Rahman Shah Alang Ibrahim &
Anor [2008] 3 MLJ 81
2. Yeo Tin Sang v Lim Choo Kee [1961] MLJ 23
3. Government Proceedings Act 1956 section 5 and 6
4. Penal Code section 509
5. Dyer v Munday [1895] 1 QB 742
6. Goh Choon Seng v Lee Kim Soo [1925] AC 550
7. Maslinda bt Ishak v Mohd Tahir bin Osman & Ors [2009] 6 MLJ 826
8. Lee Ewe Poh v Dr Lim Teik Man & Anor [2011] 1 MLJ 835
9. https://sistersinislam.org/press-briefing-syariah-criminal-trial-of-
maslinda-binti-ishak/
 ANYONE HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS ?
Thank you