SHAHRIZAL BIN ABDULLAH 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 4. KETUA POLIS PULAU PINANG

SHAHRIZAL BIN ABDULLAH 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 4. KETUA POLIS PULAU PINANG

The High Court held that the RO was lawfully made: the Inquiry Officer's report and the Deputy Minister's affidavit together demonstrated that the applicant was part of a substantial body of persons and that the Deputy Minister applied his mind; any delay in the investigative report was not inordinate; s 3(4) lawfully validated custody prior to the RO; and s 17 registration is not a prerequisite to issuing the RO. Consequently the judicial review application was dismissed.

Citation
BA-25-98-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Sharizal bin Abdullah; 1st Respondent: Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia; 2nd Respondent: Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia; 3rd Respondent: Ketua Polis Negeri Pulau Pinang; 4th Respondent: Kerajaan Malaysia
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 August 2021
Case Number
BA-25-98-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Restriction Order Under Dangerous Drugs (special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 / High Court Judgment (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention Vs Restriction Order, Substantial Body of Persons, Procedural Fairness and Representations, Deeming Provisions for Custody, Registration of Restricted Persons
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Drugs Law Preventive Detention Vs Restriction Order Substantial Body of Persons Procedural Fairness and Representations +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharizal bin Abdullah

Applicant

Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia

1st Respondent

Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia

2nd Respondent

Ketua Polis Negeri Pulau Pinang

3rd Respondent

Kerajaan Malaysia

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Restriction Order Under Dangerous Drugs (special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 / High Court Judgment (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a restriction order under s 6(3) Special Preventive Act is a form of detention attracting art 151(1)(a) FC
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Minister failed to apply his mind and whether the RO identifies association with a 'substantial body of persons' under art 149 FC
  3. 3 Whether there was undue delay in submission of the investigation report required to be submitted with convenient speed

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the RO was lawfully made: the Inquiry Officer's report and the Deputy Minister's affidavit together demonstrated that the applicant was part of a substantial body of persons and that the Deputy Minister applied his mind; any delay in the investigative report was not inordinate; s 3(4) lawfully validated custody prior to the RO; and s 17 registration is not a prerequisite to issuing the RO. Consequently the judicial review application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review application dismissed
  • Applicant's name in cause papers amended from 'Shahrizal bin Abdullah' to 'Sharizal bin Abdullah'