458 Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 2 MLRA “Intention is a matter of fact which in the nature of things cannot be proved by direct evidence. It can only be proved by inference from the surrounding circumstances. Whether these surrounding circumstances make out such intention is a question of fact in each individual case.” [71] The principle of law to be deduced from the decisions is that the Court is concerned with reasonable inferences to be drawn from a concrete situation disclosed in the evidence and how it affects the particular person whose knowledge is in issue. Therefore, in inferring knowledge the court may approach the matter in two stages. First, where opportunities for knowledge on the part of the particular person are proved. Second, where there is nothing to indicate that there are obstacles to that person acquiring the relevant knowledge, and that there is some evidence from which the Court can conclude that such person has knowledge. [72] The salient facts as adduced by the 1st respondent in our view have a bearing on the 1st respondent’s knowledge. As stated, the objective of the 1st respondent’s website is to encourage its users to indulge and participate in the discussion on its online news portal. As the respondents have conceived in their written submissions, a fact verified by an expert, third party online subscribers can leave comments on articles published on its website. The right and freedom to comment according to the respondents is a significant feature of its online media as it allows for discussions about topical matters of public interest which enable the readers to develop informed views, or opinions, on such issues. [73] Time and time again, the 1st respondent fielded its defence by contending that it does not play any role in the posting of comments mainly due to the volume of such comments, it is therefore impossible for the 1st respondent to moderate comments prior to them being uploaded and to monitor every comment that is published. Whether Presumption Rebutted [74] In determining knowledge on the part of the respondents we too had given our utmost consideration on the rebuttals raised before against the legal presumption on the 1st respondent. In our view to avoid liability, the 1st respondent must have in place a system that is capable of detecting and rapidly remove offensive comments. The 1st respondent cannot just wait to be alerted, because such alert may never come. Such a system if in place will go a long way in deflecting any allegation that publishers like the 1st respondent have a guilty mind in posting the impugned comments. It is not enough for the 1st respondent to merely rely on its T&C to online subscribers, or to say that it cannot edit a comment once posted or that they cannot monitor every comment published, due to sheer volume. [75] The three safeguards adopted by the 1st respondent have proved to fail and do not efficiently control or prevent offensive comments from being published.