Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation acts s.54(2)

Legal area

Court

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.
23 Aug 2022

LIM KEAN TECK 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) KETUA POLIS DAERAH SEBERANG PERAI TENGAH, PULAU PINANG

Citation

BA-25-9-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-9-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Given detailed, contemporaneous explanations by the Investigating Officer and Inquiry Officer and the complexity and scale of the alleged drug operation (70 kg), the court found no inordinate delay under the 'all convenient speed' standard; the allegation expressly referenced the applicant acting 'bersama sekumpulan besar orang' and facts alleged accomplices and large‑scale trafficking, satisfying the 'substantial body of persons' requirement; therefore judicial review application fails.
30 Sept 2020

MOHAMAD AYUB BIN MOHD RAMALAN

Citation

AA-44-56-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-44-56-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Where POCA prescribed no timeline the proper test is whether reports were submitted with all convenient speed under s.54(2) Interpretation Acts; having considered particulars offered by the police investigator and inquiry officer (multiple locations, multiple victims and suspects, need to record and analyse statements, travel, preexisting inquiry schedules, remand warrant, holidays and illness), the court found the explanations credible and reasonable and that the delays did not render the detention unlawful; the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
30 Sept 2020

MOHAMAD AYUB BN MOHD RAMALAN 1. ) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. ) PENGUASA PUSAT PEMULIHAN SIMPANG RENGGAM 3. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

aa-44-56-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

aa-44-56-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

POCA contains no prescribed timelines for submission of s.4A and s.10(2) reports; applying s.54(2) Interpretation Acts the applicable test is whether reports were submitted with all convenient speed and whether explanations for any intervals are credible; the detaining authority provided detailed, reasonable and credible explanations for the 15‑day and 14‑day intervals and thus detention was lawful and application for habeas corpus dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

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

LIM KEAN TECK 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) KETUA POLIS DAERAH SEBERANG PERAI TENGAH, PULAU PINANG

MOHAMAD AYUB BIN MOHD RAMALAN

MOHAMAD AYUB BN MOHD RAMALAN 1. ) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. ) PENGUASA PUSAT PEMULIHAN SIMPANG RENGGAM 3. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA