Sugenthiran A/L Paramasivam Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia dan 3 lagi

Sugenthiran A/L Paramasivam Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia dan 3 lagi

Section 11C of Act 316 limits the High Court to inquire only into procedural compliance; respondents established by uncontradicted affidavits that mandatory procedures (investigation, inquiry, report, service of detention order and Borang 1, Advisory Board hearing) were followed and no prejudice resulted; therefore detention order lawful and habeas corpus dismissed.

Citation
AB-44-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant/detenu: Sugenthiran a/l Paramasivam; Respondent Deputy Minister of Home Affairs: Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia; Respondent Chairman Advisory Board: Pengerusi, Lembaga Penasihat Jabatan Perdana Menteri; Respondent Director, Rehabilitation Centre: Pengarah, Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak, Machang, Kelantan; Respondent Investigating Officer: Inspektor Saravanan a/l Sundra Rajan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 May 2021
Case Number
AB-44-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application (habeas Corpus Under Criminal Procedure Code) / Final Judgment on Habeas Corpus Application
Outcome
Application for writ of habeas corpus dismissed; detention declared lawful
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Habeas Corpus, Judicial Review Limits, Procedural Compliance, Advisory Board Procedure, Language/interpreter Issues
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Preventive Detention Habeas Corpus Judicial Review Limits Procedural Compliance +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sugenthiran a/l Paramasivam

Applicant/detenu

Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia

Respondent Deputy Minister of Home Affairs

Pengerusi, Lembaga Penasihat Jabatan Perdana Menteri

Respondent Chairman Advisory Board

Pengarah, Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak, Machang, Kelantan

Respondent Director, Rehabilitation Centre

Inspektor Saravanan a/l Sundra Rajan

Respondent Investigating Officer

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application (habeas Corpus Under Criminal Procedure Code) / Final Judgment on Habeas Corpus Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether detention under Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 s.6(1) is lawful
  2. 2 Scope and limits of judicial review under s.11C Act 316
  3. 3 Whether procedural requirements were breached (interpreter, service, inquiry, signature on Borang 1, ability to call witnesses)

Ratio Decidendi

Section 11C of Act 316 limits the High Court to inquire only into procedural compliance; respondents established by uncontradicted affidavits that mandatory procedures (investigation, inquiry, report, service of detention order and Borang 1, Advisory Board hearing) were followed and no prejudice resulted; therefore detention order lawful and habeas corpus dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for writ of habeas corpus dismissed; detention declared lawful

Orders

  • Writ of habeas corpus refused
  • Applicant to continue detention for period specified in detention order under Act 316