MOHAMED FITRY BIN MUSA 1. DEPUTY MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS, MALAYSIA 2. OFFICER IN CHARGE OF KLUANG POLICE DISTRICT, JOHORE DARUL TAKZIM 3. CHIEF POLICE OFFICER, JOHORE DARUL TAKZIM 4. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE 5. GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA

MOHAMED FITRY BIN MUSA 1. DEPUTY MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS, MALAYSIA 2. OFFICER IN CHARGE OF KLUANG POLICE DISTRICT, JOHORE DARUL TAKZIM 3. CHIEF POLICE OFFICER, JOHORE DARUL TAKZIM 4. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE 5. GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA

The court held the challenge failed: the suspended extended detention operates as a restricted residence rather than continued detention for habeas corpus purposes; section 11C confines judicial review to procedural compliance and precludes merits review of the executive's subjective satisfaction in preventive detention matters; the preamble’s strict application is necessary for orders authorising detention but does not invalidate a suspended extension that imposes restrictions; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.

Citation
JB-25-6-12/2020 (ENCLOSURE 14) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Mohamed Fitry bin Musa; 1st Respondent: Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, Malaysia; 2nd Respondent: Officer in Charge of Kluang Police District, Johore Darul Takzim; 3rd Respondent: Chief Police Officer, Johore Darul Takzim; 4th Respondent: Inspector‑General of Police; 5th Respondent: Government of Malaysia
Court
ENCLOSURE 14
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 January 2022
Case Number
JB-25-6-12/2020 (ENCLOSURE 14) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Hearing and Judgment on Judicial Review (leave Previously Granted by Court of Appeal)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Judicial Review, Habeas Corpus, Suspension of Detention Order, Article 151 Federal Constitution, Dangerous Drugs (special Preventive Measures) Act 1985
Source Language
Malay/English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Law Preventive Detention Judicial Review Habeas Corpus Suspension of Detention Order +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 6 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Fitry bin Musa

Applicant

Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, Malaysia

1st Respondent

Officer in Charge of Kluang Police District, Johore Darul Takzim

2nd Respondent

Chief Police Officer, Johore Darul Takzim

3rd Respondent

Inspector‑General of Police

4th Respondent

Government of Malaysia

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Hearing and Judgment on Judicial Review (leave Previously Granted by Court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extension and suspended detention order under sections 7 and 11A(1)(a)(aa) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 based on identical allegations to the original section 6(1) detention order contravenes Article 149(1) and the preamble of the Act rendering the decision null and void
  2. 2 Whether the preconditions in the preamble of the Act (eg substantial body of persons, prejudicial to public order) were satisfied
  3. 3 Whether a suspended extended detention order constitutes detention for habeas corpus purposes or a restricted residence subject to different standards of review

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the challenge failed: the suspended extended detention operates as a restricted residence rather than continued detention for habeas corpus purposes; section 11C confines judicial review to procedural compliance and precludes merits review of the executive's subjective satisfaction in preventive detention matters; the preamble’s strict application is necessary for orders authorising detention but does not invalidate a suspended extension that imposes restrictions; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • No order as to costs