Civil Suit versus Criminal Complaint — Defamation in Malaysia
If you have been defamed in Malaysia, you have two routes: a civil defamation suit under the Defamation Act 1957 and the common law of tort, or a criminal complaint under section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (“CMA”). They target overlapping conduct but with different remedies, costs, timelines and standards of proof. The right choice depends on what you want to achieve.
At a glance
| Feature | Civil Suit (Defamation Act 1957) | Criminal Complaint (s.233 CMA) |
|---|---|---|
| Initiated by | Claimant (you) | Police report; Public Prosecutor decides charge |
| Standard of proof | Balance of probabilities | Beyond reasonable doubt |
| Damages to victim? | Yes — compensatory, aggravated, exemplary | No — fine goes to State |
| Penalty for offender | Damages + injunction | Fine up to RM50,000 + up to 1 year imprisonment |
| Takedown / injunction? | Yes — interim and final injunctions | No — criminal courts do not order takedown |
| Apology / retraction? | Yes — negotiable in settlement | No |
| Time limit | 1 year from publication | General CPC time limits; varies |
| Cost to claimant | You bear costs unless you win (O.59 ROC 2012) | Free — State prosecutes |
| Control of litigation | You control settlement, withdrawal | State controls; you are a witness |
| Anonymity of poster | Norwich Pharmacal application available | Police can compel disclosure under CPC |
When to choose civil suit
- You want financial compensation for reputational harm
- You want a takedown or injunction (the criminal route does not provide this)
- You want a publicly recorded apology or retraction
- You want control over the timing, settlement and conduct of the matter
- The defendant is identifiable and has assets
When to choose criminal complaint (s.233 CMA)
- You want the offender deterred by criminal sanction (record, fine, imprisonment)
- You cannot afford or do not wish to fund civil litigation
- The offender has no recoverable assets but the conduct warrants public response
- The offending content engages CMA section 233 elements (obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive content with intent to harass)
Combining both
The two routes are not mutually exclusive. In serious cases the firm regularly pursues both: police report under section 233 (deterrent + State pressure) and civil suit (damages + injunction + apology). A criminal conviction is admissible in subsequent civil proceedings as evidence of publication and falsity, which strengthens the damages claim.
Practical timeline comparison
- Civil interim injunction: 4–8 weeks from filing to interim order (urgent)
- Civil substantive trial: 12–24 months from filing to judgment
- Civil appeals (Court of Appeal): add 12–18 months
- Criminal complaint to charge: 1–6 months (Public Prosecutor decision)
- Criminal trial: 6–18 months from charge to verdict (Magistrates\’) or 12–24 months (Sessions)
- Criminal appeals: add 6–12 months
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I file both at the same time?
Yes. They run in parallel. The civil court will continue regardless of the criminal proceedings.
Will a criminal conviction help my civil case?
Yes. Under section 43 of the Evidence Act 1950, a criminal conviction is admissible in subsequent civil proceedings as evidence of the underlying facts.
Will the police actually charge under s.233?
The Public Prosecutor decides. Section 233 charges are filed in clear cases of malicious harassment but are less common for ordinary defamation. A civil suit is the more reliable route for redress.
See also: Defamation Lawyer in Malaysia | Online Defamation | Section 233 vs Civil Defamation Article
Contact
Telephone: +60 17-702 2800 | Email: [email protected] | Office: No 1-10 (1st Floor), Jalan Maju 1, Taman Maju, 83000 Batu Pahat, Johor.