460 Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 2 MLRA above. Each department is headed by an editor and assisted by a group of assistant editors and journalists. There is a total of 65 people working in the editorial team. [81] For the online news portal, there is a total of 25 staff with about 10 of them being editors and assistant editors. The 2nd respondent is the Editor-in-Chief of the editorial team. He is assisted by Mr RK Anand (Executive Director of the 1st respondent) and Mr Ng Ling Fong (Managing Editor). The editors of each department report to Mr Ng Ling Fong and Mr RK Anand, who in turn report to the 2nd respondent. As can be seen, the 1st respondent has a structured, coordinated and well-organised editorial team. It is inconceivable that in such a structured system the 1st respondent had no notice of the impugned comments. [82] The comments section at the bottom which accompanies each news reports published by the 1st respondent is only accessible to third party online subscribers. In this regard, the 1st respondent is fully aware of its role in posting and publications. It even reserves the right to disclose the subscription profile to law enforcement agencies should they require it for valid purposes. The 1st respondent no doubt has a very impressive reporting structure. [83] With such a structure, how do impugned comments such as these escape the attention of the editors? No explanation has been afforded by any of them. And none of the 10 editors denied knowledge. The person charged with that particular responsibility should be the one who can deny and explain why he was not aware of the impugned comments before being alerted on 12 June 2020. The denial instead came from its director Premesh Chandran who was not involved in the editing process. And of course the 2nd respondent as the Editor-in-Chief denied knowledge on his part. [84] The irresistible inference is that at least one of them had notice and knowledge of these impugned comments. Therefore, it is our finding that the 1st respondent cannot deny notice or knowledge of the existence of the postings. On the facts before us the 1st respondent cannot rely on mere denial to avail itself of the defence of ignorance. [85] The stated objective of the 1st respondent’s portal is to allow public discourse on matters of public interest. This noble objective must surely include fair and balance discussion on the issues of public concern. As Lord Hobhouse observed with characteristic pungency in the case of Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Limited and Others [1999] 4 All ER 609 at p 657 that, “No public interest is served by publishing or communicating misinformation” and certainly not offensive comments. [86] It would be expected for the respondents to foresee the kind of comments attracted by the publication of the article on the acquittal of Musa Aman by the court following the withdrawal of charges, coinciding with the unfortunate timing of the press release by the Chief Justice. Members of the editorial team,