ZULHILMIE BIN ZAHARI 1. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK MACHANG, KELANTAN

ZULHILMIE BIN ZAHARI 1. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK MACHANG, KELANTAN

The arrest was unlawful because the respondents failed to adduce affidavit evidence from the arresting officer proving that the applicant was informed of the grounds of arrest as required by s 28A CPC and Article 5(3); the burden to prove procedural compliance rested on the detaining authority and failure to prove compliance rendered the arrest and consequent preventive detention unlawful, entitling the court to grant habeas corpus and order immediate release.

Citation
DA-44-12-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Pemohon: Zulhilmie bin Zahri; Responden: Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia; Responden: Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Machang, Kelantan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 January 2021
Case Number
DA-44-12-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus / Preventive Detention Under Dangerous Drugs (special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 / High Court Judgment (decided)
Outcome
Writ of habeas corpus granted; detention order set aside
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Habeas Corpus, Lawfulness of Arrest, Disclosure of Investigation Material, Ministerial Subjective Satisfaction, Validity of Transfer Orders
Source Language
Malay/English
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Evidence Law Preventive Detention Habeas Corpus Lawfulness of Arrest +3 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zulhilmie bin Zahri

Pemohon

Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia

Responden

Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Machang, Kelantan

Responden

Procedural Posture

Habeas Corpus / Preventive Detention Under Dangerous Drugs (special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 / High Court Judgment (decided)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrest was lawful given failure to inform arrestee of grounds as required by Article 5(3) and s 28A CPC
  2. 2 Whether the detention order under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 was valid given alleged defects in investigation reports
  3. 3 Whether non‑compliance with procedural requirements (including service of transfer order under s 15) vitiates detention

Ratio Decidendi

The arrest was unlawful because the respondents failed to adduce affidavit evidence from the arresting officer proving that the applicant was informed of the grounds of arrest as required by s 28A CPC and Article 5(3); the burden to prove procedural compliance rested on the detaining authority and failure to prove compliance rendered the arrest and consequent preventive detention unlawful, entitling the court to grant habeas corpus and order immediate release.

Court Disposition

Writ of habeas corpus granted; detention order set aside

Orders

  • Writ of habeas corpus issued in favour of the applicant
  • Detention order under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 set aside