Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 151 federal constitution

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2024

IZZAT HAMZIE HAFIZ BIN SHRKAWI 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK BATU GAJAH,PERAK 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Citation

BA-44-160-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-160-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Investigating Officer and Inquiry Officer submitted their respective reports within the statutory 60-day detention period required by the Act, the court held there was no procedural non-compliance. Further, the Act does not mandate furnishing the detainee with his recorded statement; Article 151(1)(a) was satisfied by informing the applicant of the grounds and allegations. Therefore the habeas corpus application failed and was dismissed.
29 Nov 2024

ALI FIKRI BIN MOHAMAD JELANI 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK BATU GAJAH,PERAK 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Citation

BA-44-161-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-161-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Respondents discharged the burden: inquiry and investigation reports were prepared within the statutory/acceptable timeframe (investigating officer completed report within 20 working days and within the 60‑day framework), the Board afforded adjournments but lawfully refused a further adjournment to comply with its duty under s.10/Article 151 to submit recommendations within three months, and the alleged 11:40 pm DO was an unsubstantiated clerical error; therefore procedural compliance with the Act was established and the habeas corpus application failed.
31 Mar 2022

TEH WAN LI 1. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara 2. ) KETUA POLIS DAERAH KULIM 3. ) [Ketua Polis Negara] 4. ) [PENGERUSI DAN AHLI LEMBAGA, LEMBAGA PENASIHAT JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI] 5. ) [Kerajaan Malaysia]

Citation

BA-25-7-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-7-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found Deputy Minister had applied his mind and considered the three statutory ingredients; affidavits and explanations established procedural compliance and justified any delay; applicant was afforded rights including witnesses and translation; typographical error was non‑prejudicial; therefore application for judicial review lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.
3 Jan 2022

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

Citation

JB-25-6-12/2020 (ENCLOSURE 14) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ENCLOSURE 14
Case number

JB-25-6-12/2020 (ENCLOSURE 14) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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.
13 Dec 2021

SUGENTHIRAN A/L PARAMASIVAM 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENASIHAT,JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI 3. ) PENGARAH, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK, MACHANG KELANTAN 4. ) SARAVANAN A/L SUNDRA RAJAN

Citation

05(HC)-97-05/2021(A) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

HC
Case number

05(HC)-97-05/2021(A) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Advisory Board's refusal to exercise its s.12 powers to summon identified material witnesses, coupled with the investigating officer performing dual roles as investigator and interpreter thereby compromising investigatory integrity, amounted to procedural violations of Act 316 and Article 151 that prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair and effective representation; the detention was therefore invalid and habeas corpus was ordered.
18 Nov 2021

1. PUNITHAN A/L GANASAN 2. HEMARAJ A/L A SHANMUHAM 3. WONG SUI KHENG 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM JOHOR 3. PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK MACHANG KELANTAN 4. KETU

Citation

WA-44-137-05/2021; WA-44-140-05/2021; WA-44-151-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-137-05/2021; WA-44-140-05/2021; WA-44-151-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Majority of grounds challenged either concerned pre‑detention investigatory irregularities or discretionary acts of the Advisory/Appeal Board and therefore were academic or non‑justiciable once the Minister validly made a detention order under s6(1); no procedural non‑compliance affecting the legality of the detention was established, so habeas corpus relief is refused in line with binding Federal Court authority.
2 Dec 2020

SARAVANAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. PENGUASA KANAN, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR 4. KETUA POLIS JOHOR

Citation

BA-44-201-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-201-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found respondents discharged burden of proof: applicant was informed of right to counsel and did not seek adjournment, and the investigating and inquiry reports were submitted and considered by the Minister before the detention order; mandatory procedural requirements under the Act were complied with and detention was lawful, therefore habeas corpus application dismissed.
10 Aug 2020

MOHD FADZLYNIZAN BIN MOHD NASIR (NO. K/P: 871016-07-5095) 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI 2. PENGUASA KANAN, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK BATU GAJAH, PERAK

Citation

44-38-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

44-38-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Detention order was unlawful because respondents withheld the applicant's recorded statement taken during the inquiry (in violation of s9(2)(b)(iii)/Article 151 protections) and the allegation of facts in the detention order did not prima facie show association with a 'substantial body of persons' as required by Article 149 and the Act's preamble; these procedural and substantive failures breached mandatory statutory and constitutional preconditions and justified issuance of habeas corpus and immediate release.
20 Dec 2019

POA JAC KY (I/D NO: 900327-01-6033) 1. DEPUTY HOME MINISTER, MALAYSIA 2. DIRECTOR OF REHABILITATION CENTRE, SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR

Citation

BA-44-234-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-234-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The detention order was invalid because mandatory procedural preconditions were not met: the order and supporting materials failed to identify the dangerous drug exactly as listed in the DDA First Schedule (omission of the MDMA acronym), contained unrefuted factual errors as to the alleged location, and the respondents failed to furnish the applicant with his recorded statement as required for effective representation; these defects went to the root and violated Article 151(1)(a) and the statutory scheme, rendering detention unlawful and requiring immediate release.