Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak v Thomas Thomas @ Mohan A/L K. Thomas

Appellant(s): Mohammad Najib Bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak

Respondent(s): Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas

• YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru
• YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong
• YA Dato' Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

• The appellant, a former Prime Minister, initiated a civil suit against the respondent, the former Attorney General and Public Prosecutor, alleging negligence, misfeasance in public office, and abuse of process regarding thirty-five criminal charges preferred against him.
• The respondent successfully applied to the High Court to strike out the suit under Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012, a decision which the appellant subsequently challenged in the Court of Appeal.
• At the material time of filing the civil suit and the subsequent appeal, the criminal proceedings against the appellant were still pending, and he had not been finally acquitted of the charges in question.

• Whether the Attorney General, acting as the Public Prosecutor, and Deputy Public Prosecutors owe a common law duty of care to an accused person when exercising prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution.
• Whether a cause of action for the torts of malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, or abuse of process can be maintained against the Public Prosecutor before the final termination of criminal proceedings in favor of the accused.
• Whether the Malaysian Courts should recognize a new, distinct tort of "malicious process" against prosecutorial authorities in light of the existing legal framework for malicious prosecution.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Public Prosecutor does not owe a duty of care to an accused person as prosecutorial discretion is exercised on a public interest basis, which negates the proximity and policy requirements for a duty of care in negligence.
• The Court affirmed that causes of action for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office regarding prosecutorial powers only accrue upon the final acquittal of the accused; filing such suits prematurely results in an abuse of process and undesirable duplicity of proceedings.
• The Court declined to recognize a new tort of "malicious process" against the Public Prosecutor, ruling that the established tort of malicious prosecution provides a just and adequate remedy for accused persons who are ultimately vindicated.