Latest news with #RozMawar

Mother of Dutch model awarded RM1.1m for negligence in probe over daughter's death

Daily Express

2 days ago

Daily Express

Mother of Dutch model awarded RM1.1m for negligence in probe over daughter's death

Published on: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 Published on: Tue, Jul 29, 2025 By: Bernama Text Size: KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here today awarded RM1.1 million in damages to the mother of Dutch model Ivana Esther Robert Smit ( pic ), whose nude body was found on the sixth-floor balcony of a condominium here eight years ago. Christina Carolina Gerarda Johanna Verstappen had sued the Inspector-General of Police, Dang Wangi investigating officer ASP Faizal Abdullah, the Home Minister, and the Malaysian government for alleged breach of statutory duties and negligence in the investigation into the cause of her daughter's death. In her judgment, Judge Roz Mawar Rozain ordered the defendants to pay RM500,000 in general damages, RM300,000 in aggravated damages, and RM300,000 in exemplary damages to Verstappen. The defendants were also ordered to pay RM100,000 in costs to the plaintiff. In the judgment, Roz Mawar also ordered the first defendant (Inspector-General of Police) to remove the second defendant (Faizal) from the current task force investigating the case, while the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) was ordered to recommence investigation relating to Ivana Smit's death as per the 2019 High Court order. "PDRM is (also) directed to brief the AGC (Attorney General Chambers) every three months from the date of this judgment on the updates of investigation, and the AGC is to deliver on the sufficiency of evidence and the next step forward," she said. In allowing the suit by Verstappen, Roz Mawar ruled that there were breaches of the duty of care by the defendants and crime scene management failures. "There were evidence preservation failures. There was inadequate witness and suspect handling. There was forensic evidence of neglect, and there was expert evidence of dismissal. The plaintiff is a direct victim, has suffered harm, and that harm suffered by the plaintiff is the direct and foreseeable consequence of the defendants' breach of duty," she said. Roz Mawar said the court also found there was misfeasance in public office, which involves the improper performance of a lawful act, and concluded that the investigation failed to employ advanced forensic methodologies that could have provided crucial temporal insights into the trauma suffered by the deceased. She said that on Feb 8, 2018, a report revealed the presence of American citizen Alex Johnson's Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) under the fingernails of the deceased. 'Despite this critical piece of evidence, both Alex and Luna Almazkyzy (couple) were allowed to leave Malaysia on March 29, 2018, nearly a month after the DNA findings became available,' she said. The judge said the second defendant testified that although the DNA evidence was received and suspicions had arisen, no immediate steps were taken to detain the suspect or suspects before their departure. 'This sequence of events reflects a fundamental breakdown in investigative procedures. The presence of DNA evidence linking a suspect to the deceased, especially under such suspicious circumstances, should have triggered prompt and decisive action to prevent the suspect from leaving the jurisdiction,' she said. * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia

[UPDATED] High Court orders police to reopen investigation into Dutch model Ivana Smit's death

New Straits Times

2 days ago

New Straits Times

[UPDATED] High Court orders police to reopen investigation into Dutch model Ivana Smit's death

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has ordered the police to recommence the investigation into the death of Dutch model Ivana Esther Robert Smit, who was found dead after falling from the 20th floor of a condominium here in 2017. Judge Roz Mawar Rozain also ordered the police to brief the Attorney-General's Chambers (A-GC) every three months on the progress of the investigation. The A-GC is to determine the sufficiency of the evidence and the next course of action. Roz Mawar said this in her judgment after awarding Smit's mother, Christina Carolina Gerarda Johanna Verstappen, RM1.1 million in damages against the Inspector-General of Police, the case's investigating officer, and the government. She said police had been negligent in their investigation and had failed to comply with a 2019 High Court order to properly reinvestigate the case. In 2019, then High Court judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah directed A-GC to order the police to investigate the cause of Ivana's death, after setting aside the inquest verdict that classified her death as a 'misadventure' and reclassifying it as death caused by a person or persons known or unknown. She said the 2019 High Court order was clear and straightforward, as it directed the case to be reclassified as a death caused by person or persons unknown and required the A-GC to instruct the police to reopen the investigation as a murder case. Roz Mawar said following the previous High Court order, the police had established a specialised task force to re-investigate the case. "This court observes that the defendants failed to ensure the effective operation and accountability of this investigative mechanism. "The evidence indicates that the task force did not produce substantive results or provide meaningful updates to the interested parties, particularly the plaintiff and the deceased's family. "The court recognises that investigations may take time to yield results, but the apparent lack of transparency and accountability in the task force's operations, combined with the absence of any demonstrable progress or communication, suggests a failure to properly manage and execute the reinvestigation mandate. "This conduct, when viewed alongside the earlier investigative deficiencies, demonstrates a pattern of deficient performance of statutory duties that has resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff's legitimate interests in obtaining closure and understanding regarding her daughter's tragic death," she said in her judgment today. However, Roz Mawar stressed that her findings should not be seen as a criticism of the police force as a whole. She said the judgment highlights specific institutional failures that need to be addressed, rather than casting blame on the entire force. "The awards are meant to serve both compensatory and deterrent purposes, underscoring the need for public authorities to carry out their duties with proper diligence and accountability." Smit, who was at the home of American couple Alexander William Johnson and Laura Almazkyzy, was allegedly partying with the couple before she fell to her death. She fell from the 20th floor, and her naked body was found on a sixth-floor balcony at 10am. Smit, who had dual Dutch and Belgian citizenship, was the second runner-up in the Malaysia Supermodel Search 2014 when she was 15.

[UPDATED] Menara KL, parent company's suit against government to proceed to trial

New Straits Times

15-07-2025

Business
New Straits Times

[UPDATED] Menara KL, parent company's suit against government to proceed to trial

KUALA LUMPUR: Menara Kuala Lumpur Sdn Bhd (MKLSB) and its parent company, Hydroshoppe Sdn Bhd's RM1 billion lawsuit against the government over the termination of the Kuala Lumpur Tower (Menara KL) management agreement will proceed to full trial. This came after High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain dismissed the application by Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil and the government to strike out the suit today. Roz Mawar, in her ruling, said the case against Fahmi and the government should not be struck out at this stage as there are triable issues, particularly relating to the proposed agreement in 2022, that warrant a full hearing. "Fahmi and the government gave five reasons to support their bid to strike out the suit. "While I may agree with some of them, the court finds that the case should not be dismissed at this stage, especially on the 2022 agreement. "This court cannot allow the striking out of the claims against the first (Fahmi) and second (the government) defendants, as this is not a clear and obvious case where the claim is plainly unsustainable. "Therefore, I dismiss the first and second defendants' application to strike out the suit," she said. Roz Mawar then fixed Nov 3 for the next case management. During the same hearing, Roz Mawar also allowed the application by three companies named as defendants to strike out the suit. According to Judge Roz Mawar, the pleadings filed against all three companies were weak, overly general, and insufficient for a claim that requires proof of specific elements. "The plaintiffs failed to state specific facts to support their allegations concerning the defendants' knowledge, the manner of interference (whether direct or indirect) any specific intention to interfere, or any special damages suffered. "The plaintiffs merely made bare allegations of dishonesty without stating specific supporting facts. "The details provided were merely a repetition of general claims from an inducement of breach of contract allegation. "The plaintiffs also failed to specify how the third to fifth defendants breached any duties related to the trust. "Serious allegations such as dishonesty require serious statements supported by concrete facts, not just conclusions," she said. In March 2024, Hydroshoppe and MKLSB filed a lawsuit against Fahmi, the government, LSH Service Master Sdn Bhd, LSH Best Builders Sdn Bhd, and Service Master (M) Sdn Bhd. LSH Service Master is a joint venture between LSH Best Builders and Service Master, which was awarded the tower management concession, replacing Hydroshoppe and MKLSB. Hydroshoppe and MKLSB filed the suit over the alleged wrongful termination of their agreement in November 2022, which included the extension of the company's concession period from 15 to 30 years.

Anwar allowed interim stay, June 16 civil suit vacated

Daily Express

10-06-2025

Politics
Daily Express

Anwar allowed interim stay, June 16 civil suit vacated

Published on: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 Published on: Tue, Jun 10, 2025 By: V Anbalagan Text Size: The Court of Appeal said Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim had shown special circumstances justifying the grant of a stay of the trial. PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has granted Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim an ad-interim stay of a civil suit brought by a former research assistant over an alleged assault. The temporary stay is pending a full hearing of the prime minister's application, which will take place on July 21. Advertisement A three-member bench chaired by Justice Supang Lian said Anwar had shown special circumstances to justify the grant of the application. 'We are of the considered view that under Section 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, we are empowered to make an ad-interim order to preserve the integrity of the appellant's (Anwar) stay. 'Accordingly, the trial in the High Court will be stayed pending the disposal of the stay application,' said Supang. Also on the panel hearing the application were Justices Faizah Jamaludin and Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin. The bench also clarified that parties need not exchange witness statements on Friday (June 13) as directed by High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain last week, given today's decision. The trial of the suit was scheduled to take place before Roz Mawar over seven days between June 16 and June 25 after she dismissed Anwar's reference application on grounds that none of the questions posed succeeded in crossing the threshold set out in Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act. In her 21-page judgment, she said the application was misconceived as to the jurisdiction of the courts, and was based on speculative doctrines with no constitutional footing. The prime minister wanted the apex court to rule on whether Articles 5(1), 8(1), 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution grant him qualified immunity from the suit filed by Yusoff Rawther four years ago. The suit filed by Yusoff relates to events which allegedly took place before Anwar took office on Nov 24, 2022. Anwar is appealing to the Court of Appeal against Roz Mawar's refusal to refer eight legal questions arising from the suit to the Federal Court for determination. He is seeking a stay of all proceedings pending the disposal of the appeal. Yusoff, a grandson of the late Penang consumer advocate SM Mohamed Idris, claims he was assaulted at Anwar's home in Segambut in October 2018. He is seeking general, special, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as interest, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court. Anwar denies the claim and has filed a countersuit. Today, before the bench, lawyer Alan Wong, appearing for Anwar, said the appeal against Roz Mawar's decision would be rendered academic and nugatory if the interim stay was disallowed. 'There is no prejudice to the plaintiff if the trial is suspended. He can be compensated in the event that the plaintiff proves his case,' he added. He said the seven-day trial would also disrupt and cause irreversible harm to the prime minister's executive function. 'It is not an ordinary suit but one laced with political motive,' he added. Counsel Rafique Rashid Ali submitted that the appeal on the reference questions was doomed to fail as they were rhetorical and had no basis in Malaysian jurisprudence. He also said the defendant knew the trial dates as they were fixed on June 6 last year. 'Yet he filed the reference application 23 days before the trial was to start through his new solicitors,' Rafique said, adding that his client should have his day in court as the suit was filed in 2021. Lawyers Shahir Tahir, K Rajasegaran, and SM Kavyaasrini also appeared for Anwar while Nurmustanir Nor and Amirul Ar-Rashid Azman acted for Yusoff. * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia

Nobody is above the law, says High Court

Malaysian Reserve

09-06-2025

Politics
Malaysian Reserve

Nobody is above the law, says High Court

Anwar filed his application on May 23, asking whether a sitting PM has limited immunity from civil lawsuits under Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution by FARAH SOLHI THE Kuala Lumpur (KL) High Court's dismissal of Prime Minister (PM) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's application to refer a constitutional question to the Federal Court — specifically on procedural immunity from civil liabilities — strongly affirms that no one is above the law. Judge Roz Mawar Rozain ruled that Anwar's claim of being deprived of personal liberty, based on the assertion that the suit filed against him was vexatious and politically motivated, is untenable. In delivering her brief judgement on June 4, the judge held that none of the Federal Constitution articles cited in Anwar's application gave rise to any real, substantial or justiciable constitutional questions. Roz Mawar said Anwar had not demonstrated that he is being denied legal protection afforded to others, or that any legal provisions operate unequally against him. 'The questions posed are speculative (and) not necessary for the disposal of this case, nor do they concern the interpretation or validity of any constitutional provision. 'From a judicial perspective, the proposed questions do not appear to meet the threshold of genuine constitutional controversy,' she said, while also awarded former research assistant Mohammed Yusoff Rawther RM20,000 in costs. Anwar also questions whether courts are constitutionally required to protect public officials from lawsuits when no crime is proven (pic: Media Mulia) Roz Mawar further ruled that constitutional supremacy demands all persons, including public office holders, be equally subject to the rule of law, and that not every question touching or quoting the Federal Constitution warrants referral, as the Federal Court is not a forum for speculative advisory opinions. She added that Anwar's affirmed readiness to proceed with the trial, as submitted by his counsels during the application hear- ing on June 3, indicated no evidence that the suit impairs his ability to perform his constitutional duties. The trial will proceed as scheduled on June 16, as the court found no special circumstances warranting a postponement. Constitutional Questions Raised in Anwar's Application Anwar filed his application on May 23, questioning whether a sitting PM has qualified immunity from civil suits under Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution. This pertains to alleged private acts committed prior to his appointment, where the continuation of such litigation, he argued, would impair the effective discharge of his executive functions and undermine the constitutional separation of powers. Anwar also questioned whether the High Court's decision to allow the civil suit, based on private allegations but pursued in a political context, would violate the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law under Article 8(1) which relates to the fundamental rights to equal treatment. Anwar also questioned, under Article 5(1), whether a sitting PM should be protected from lawsuits that are politically motivated or poorly timed, particularly if they relate to actions taken before assuming office, lack clear legal merit, but could damage reputation and hinder the ability to govern. He further raised the issue of whether courts are constitutionally required to shield public officials from such lawsuits when no crime has been proven. In response, Roz Mawar said Article 5(1) does not extend to mere inconvenience, reputational risks or constitutional burden arising from civil proceedings, noting that Anwar's rights were not violated as he remains at liberty, with no restrictions on his movement or legal capacity. 'The act requiring a defendant to respond to a claim, however politically sensitive, does not implicate Article 5(1), and no precedent has extended its ambit to encompass exposure to civil litigation,' she said. She also found Anwar's questions regarding Article 8(1) to be without merit, saying that the provision serves as a shield, not a sword for immunity, it guarantees equal legal treatment, not exemption from the law, as established in precedent cases. 'The defendant has not shown any discriminatory conduct by the courts or the law. The plaintiff's (Yusoff Rawther's) suit was filed under the same procedural and substantive law applicable to all Malaysians and foreigners alike in this country,' she added. Roz Mawar said while Article 39, which pertains to executive authority, is a structural allocation of powers and does not confer any personal immunity on the PM or Cabinet ministers. It does not suggest, either expressly or implicitly, that executive authority includes protection against personal civil liability. She also said Anwar's arguments contending Article 43 were flawed, as no immunity is implied under the said article. This provision, she added, pertains solely to appointments and tenure, and does not prescribe or imply immunity from judicial proceedings. 'No clause in Article 43 shields a sitting PM from accountability for private acts committed prior to assuming office,' she said, adding that constitutional silence does not equate to immunity. The judge also said that the mind map produced by Anwar's legal team, intended to illustrate their theory of constructive harm to the office, has no textual or jurisprudential basis, nor does any provision in the Constitution imply immunity for the PM from civil litigation. 'The defendant's legal team could not clearly anchor this proposed doctrine to any particular article or legal test. The argument, at best, may be rooted in policy concerns rather than constitutional law,' she said. While Article 39, which pertains to executive authority, is a structural allocation of powers, it does not confer any personal immunity on the PM or Cabinet ministers Is Seeking Immunity a Violation of Constitutional Rights? Senior lawyer Datuk Seri Rajan Navaratnam said every individual, including the sitting PM, who feels aggrieved is entitled to approach the courts for determination of a subject matter. However, there are certain limitations to matters raised, as courts are bound by precedent decisions and administration of justice is subject to specific rules and procedures. 'It is for the courts to determine whether such an action (of raising legal questions) has merit or otherwise. 'Article 8 of the Constitution states that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. In other words, no one is above or exempt from the legal framework,' he told The Malaysian Reserve (TMR). However, the Constitution does not afford immunity from court proceedings to any individual, except under Article 183, which provides that no action can be initiated against the Yang diPertuan Agong or a State Ruler without the consent of the Attorney General (AG). Therefore, it can be said that even Article 183 does not provide absolute immunity, as the discretion lies with the AG. Meanwhile, senior lawyer Datuk Seri Dr Jahabardeen Mohamed Yunoos, affirming Rajan's view, said there are various legal mechanisms in place to weed out frivolous suits and those that attempt to abuse the judicial process. He noted that the law does accord certain forms of immunity, but these are limited — primarily to judges or individuals acting in a judicial capacity, as stipulated under Section 14 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. This provision states that judges and others performing judicial functions cannot be sued for actions taken in the course of their duties, even if those actions exceeded their authority, provided they genuinely believed they had such authority at the time. Yusoff Rawther (centre) is currently under police detention after being charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for allegedly trafficking 305g of cannabis What's Next? Anwar's counsel, Datuk Seri K Rajasegaran told TMR on June 5 that they have filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Court immediately following the High Court's decision. However, he confirmed that his team is still awaiting a date or case management notice from the Appellate Court. He added that they will file a notice of urgency together with an application to stay (postpone) the High Court's proceedings. Pending any decision by the higher courts, the High Court will proceed with the matter, following Roz Mawar's dismissal of Rajasegaran's oral application for postponement on June 4. Yusoff Rawther filed a suit against Anwar in July 2021, claiming he was sexually assaulted by the latter on Oct 2, 2018, at Anwar's residence. He made a statutory declaration and lodged a police report regarding the incident in 2019. However, he was later accused of attempting to damage the PM's political career and reputation through the police report. The plaintiff, who was Anwar's research assistant, stated in his affidavits that the allegations had affected his mental health. He is seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, along with interest, costs and other relief the court deems appropriate. Yusoff Rawther is currently under police detention after being charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for allegedly trafficking 305g of cannabis found in his vehicle near the mosque at the police contingent headquarters on Sept 6, 2024. He was also charged under Section 36(1) of the Firearms Act 1960 for possession of two imitation firearms. The High Court is scheduled to deliver its decision at the end of the prosecution case on his charges on June 12. This article first appeared in The Malaysian Reserve weekly print edition