1. ) Menteri Dalam Negeri 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 1. ) CHONG TON SIN 2. ) NGEO BOON LIN

1. ) Menteri Dalam Negeri 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 1. ) CHONG TON SIN 2. ) NGEO BOON LIN

The Minister's decision to ban the book was unlawfully sustained because he failed to justify the ban with evidence of actual or likely prejudice to public order, morality or public interest, failed to objectively assess the publication in context, relied on irrelevant considerations and denied procedural fairness; applying the objective test the High Court correctly quashed the ban and the Court of Appeal (minority) affirms that no appellate intervention was warranted.

Citation
W-01(A)-156-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Menteri Dalam Negeri; Appellant: Kerajaan Malaysia; Respondent: Chong Ton Sin; Respondent: Ngeo Boon Lin
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 September 2023
Case Number
W-01(A)-156-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment (minority)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the High Court allowing the judicial review and quashing the ban affirmed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Censorship and Book Bans, Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion, Public Order/morality/public Interest, Legitimate Expectation and Right to Be Heard
Source Language
Malay/English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Media and Publication Law Freedom of Expression Censorship and Book Bans Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion Public Order/morality/public Interest Legitimate Expectation and Right to Be Heard

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Menteri Dalam Negeri

Appellant

Kerajaan Malaysia

Appellant

Chong Ton Sin

Respondent

Ngeo Boon Lin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment (minority)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ban under s.7(1) PPPA on the book was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the ban violated Article 10(1)(a) FC right to freedom of expression and could be justified under Article 10(2) FC
  3. 3 Whether the Minister's subjective discretion was amenable to objective judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister's decision to ban the book was unlawfully sustained because he failed to justify the ban with evidence of actual or likely prejudice to public order, morality or public interest, failed to objectively assess the publication in context, relied on irrelevant considerations and denied procedural fairness; applying the objective test the High Court correctly quashed the ban and the Court of Appeal (minority) affirms that no appellate intervention was warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the High Court allowing the judicial review and quashing the ban affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of certiorari quashing the 1st Appellant's decision to ban the book affirmed