4 Aug 2025
The application to set aside the adjudication decision was dismissed because the Adjudicator had considered the parties' submissions and accorded procedural fairness; errors on the merits do not constitute grounds under s15 CIPAA to set aside; and the Adjudicator acted within CIPAA powers and had discretion to award costs.
23 Jan 2024
The court held that none of the three grounds raised constituted procedural non-compliance under the Act: the allegations of fact read together were coherent and sufficient for representation under s9(2); the incorrect drug-type reference in an affidavit was immaterial and not prejudicial given completed investigation reports showed Methamphetamine and the Minister relied on those; and the location description referring to the roadside in front of the shop was adequate. Therefore the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
26 May 2022
Only one issue was decisive: detention beyond 30 days at the Teluk Intan police lock-up lacked proven authorization under the Prisons Act 1995 and respondents failed to show ministerial authorization for that place of confinement; that non‑compliance rendered the detention unlawful and warranted issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and immediate release.
18 Nov 2021
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.
21 May 2021
Section 11C of Act 316 limits the High Court to inquire only into procedural compliance; respondents established by uncontradicted affidavits that mandatory procedures (investigation, inquiry, report, service of detention order and Borang 1, Advisory Board hearing) were followed and no prejudice resulted; therefore detention order lawful and habeas corpus dismissed.
21 Jan 2021
The court held that there was no procedural non-compliance: 'shall cause' in section 4A permits the PIO to cause submission via others and the report was received on 12.3.2019; the 10‑day gap in forwarding to the Board was justified and not inordinate given need to attach remand documents and because the Inquiry Officer's finding was later considered together with the report; the inquiry and report were conducted and submitted with all convenient speed; the manner and completeness of investigation are not reviewable under section 15B. Therefore the detention pursuant to the Board's order date…