Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay in investigation

Legal area

Court

12 Apr 2026

ABDUL AZIZ B MUSTAFFA

Citation

DA-62JSK-9-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-62JSK-9-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On maximum evaluation the prosecution proved the elements of the amended charge under s376(3): credible, consistent testimony of the child victim corroborated by medical and investigative evidence established penetration, lack of consent and prohibited familial relationship; defence amounted to uncorroborated denial and failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction and sentence under s376(3) are justified.
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.
24 Nov 2022

ANIDA EFENDI 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGERI JOHOR

Citation

BA-25-71-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-71-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The detention order was lawfully susceptible to judicial review because the grounds failed to allege that the applicant was part of a 'substantial body of persons' as required by Article 149 and the DDSPMA preamble; that defect was material and meritorious, entitling the applicant to relief, while the other challenges (definition conflict, alleged delay, specification of area) were dismissed on merits.
24 Nov 2022

MOHD ZAWAWI BIN ISMAIL 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) Ketua Polis Negeri Kelantan

Citation

BA-25-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the restriction order was valid: the reasons showed the applicant formed part of a 'sekumpulan besar orang' satisfying Article 149 and the DDSPMA preamble; explanations for investigation and inquiry timelines were reasonable and did not amount to inordinate delay under s54(2); and the restriction order complied with s6(3) by imposing control and specifying the area, therefore the judicial review application was dismissed.
21 Oct 2022

SOFYAN BIN JAAFAR 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) PENGUASA KANAN, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR

Citation

BA-44-166-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-166-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court found investigating officer failed to provide a detailed, reasonable explanation for the 16-day delay and that the investigation report was incomplete (no clear evidence of witness recordings), rendering parts of the detention process defective; however the court accepted the Deputy Minister's satisfaction on Article 149 as supported by facts (including payments and quantities) and therefore allowed habeas corpus on procedural defects and ordered immediate release.
8 Apr 2022

TABIN BIN OYOH 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) PENGUASA KANAN, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR

Citation

BA-44-384-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-384-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Detention was unlawful because the facts did not establish involvement of the applicant with a large organized group as required by Article 149 and the Act, and because there were unreasonable delays—24 days for submission of the complete investigation report and 11 days for the inquiry report—without credible explanations; these procedural breaches prejudiced the applicant and invalidated the detention, entitling release by writ of habeas corpus.
29 Dec 2020

TAN CHAI HOK 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. KETUA POLIS NEGARA 3. PENGARAH, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR

Citation

BA-44-240-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-240-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The writ was allowed because there was an unjustified inordinate delay by the Investigation Officer in finalising and submitting the investigation report (an 8‑day unexplained delay after the last witness statement) which constituted procedural non‑compliance significant enough to undermine the statutory safeguards, rendering the detention illegal; other alleged irregularities either did not prejudice the applicant or were satisfied (Advisory Board hearings occurred and Form I was served; Minister had regard to association with a substantial body).
28 Sept 2020

VENKAHTESH A/L DAVEDASON 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. PENGARAH, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK, BATU GAJAH, PERAK 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Citation

BA-44-144-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-144-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found mandatory procedural non-compliance and inordinate unexplained delays (investigating officer 39 days; inquiry officer 14 days) and that the detention order failed to establish the applicant was part of a substantial body/syndicate; detaining authority failed to discharge burden of proof; habeas corpus allowed and applicant ordered released immediately.
20 Feb 2020

Baharudin bin Mat Nor

Citation

AB-41S-4-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-41S-4-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the magistrate did not commit an appealable error: child witnesses were competent and any irregularity in holding the s.133A inquiry after oath was curable and caused no prejudice; prior incidents were inadmissible and were not considered; delay in investigation did not prejudice the defence given overwhelming evidence; conviction under s.354 PC was safe. However, sentencing was excessive in context and was varied under s.316 CPC to substitute imprisonment with a RM5000 fine based on mitigating factors (age, remorse, apology, financial hardship, rehabilitation) and discret…