Mohamad Sukri Bin Hat & Ors v Fadhelah Binti Othman

Appellant(s):

• Mohamad Sukri Bin Hat
• Koperal Jannatul Naim Bin Abdul Manab
• Konstabel Derison Bin Pingot
• Fadly Adzwardy Bin Tahir
• Ramilah Binti Superman
• Insp Mohamad Adam Daniyal @ Mohandass Bin Abdullah
• Asp Winston Anak Raip
• Ketua Polis Daerah Seberang Perai Utara
• Ketua Polis Pulau Pinang
• Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia
• Kerajaan Malaysia

Respondent(s): Fadhelah Binti Othman

• YA Datuk Azimah binti Omar
• YA Dato' Azizul Azmi Bin Adnan
• YA Datuk Dr Lim Hock Leng

• The respondent, as administratrix of the deceased's estate and a dependant, sued the appellants for negligence, breach of statutory duties, and misfeasance in public office following the death of her son.
• The deceased, a detainee, committed suicide by hanging himself in a police lockup two days after his arrest on suspicion of drug-related offences.
• The High Court found the first to sixth appellants (individual police officers) liable in negligence and the eleventh appellant (Government of Malaysia) vicariously liable, awarding damages including aggravated damages.

• Whether the police owed a common law and statutory duty of care to the detainee to prevent suicide, irrespective of whether he was a known suicide risk.
• Whether the first to sixth appellants breached their duty of care and statutory obligations, and if the eleventh appellant was vicariously liable for the detainee's death.
• Whether the High Court erred in awarding aggravated damages for negligence in the absence of egregious conduct or deliberate acts of injury.

• The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's finding of liability in negligence against the first to sixth appellants and vicarious liability against the eleventh appellant.
• The Court affirmed that in Malaysia, a broader duty of care is owed to all detainees to prevent self-harm, stemming from statutory duties (Police Act 1967, Lockup Rules 1953, Perintah Tetap) which do not distinguish between known suicide risks.
• The Court set aside the award for aggravated damages, holding that negligence alone, without egregious conduct or deliberate intent to injure, does not warrant such an award.