456 Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 2 MLRA [61] It was then argued that it would not be practical or possible for the 1st respondent to moderate all the comments posted by third parties. Aggravated by the high volume of about 2,000 comments received per day with 25,000 online subscribers, the respondents’ hands are full. The process of peer reporting is thus resorted to. Only upon the receipt of such report, will an editor immediately examine and decide on the removal of the same. It is for this reason, the 1st respondent reserves the right to remove or modify comments posted at its discretion. In this way, the 1st respondent’s take down policy would be effectively implemented. [62] The 1st respondent asserted that its online portal has the objectives of disseminating information and generating public discussion on matters of public interest. It enables its readership to form informed views. The said twin objectives can only be achieved through a free, frank and open discussion on a particular subject. This, the respondent contended is anchored on the protected constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression enshrined in art 10 of our Federal Constitution. [63] The respondents then contended, to succeed in this Application, it is incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate to this court that the 1st respondent had intended to publish the impugned comments and it is evident, that this was not the case. The respondents therefore submitted that there was no basis in law to presume such an intention on the part of the respondents. In any event, even if there was such basis, all the facts stated above would rebut that presumption. [64] In summary, the nub of the respondents’ defence is that of knowledge, real or inferred. In fact, at the hearing learned counsel for the respondents too presented the position that the respondents’ case rests or falls on the issue of knowledge. Countering this legal argument, the applicant argued that knowledge or intention of the respondents can nevertheless be inferred from the very facts and circumstances as adduced by the respondents themselves. Our Finding On Knowledge [65] Now, it is incumbent upon this court to ascertain this contentious issue on knowledge. It is a well-settled legal principle that knowledge is purely a matter of fact. As such, knowledge can be deduced or inferred from the circumstances surrounding each particular event. Proof of knowledge is always a matter of inference (see Leow Nghee Lim v. Regina [1955] 1 MLRH 614; Parlan Dadeh v. PP [2008] 2 MLRA 763; Victor Chidiebere Nzomiwu & Ors v. PP [2013] 3 MLRA 487; Public Prosecutor v. Hoo Chee Keong [1996] 1 MLRH 829 and PP v. Abdul Rahman Akif [2007] 1 MLRA 568). [66] Succinctly stated by Augustine Paul J in PP v. Kenneth Fook Mun Lee @ Omar Iskandar Lee Abdullah (No 2) [2003] 7 MLRH 81 that “knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of an act”. His Lordship held that knowledge is a mental act and must be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a particular case.