Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Police supervision order

Legal area

Court

27 Nov 2023

MUHAMMAD AMIR SHAUKAT BIN RAHMAT

Citation

BF-83D-1066-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BF-83D-1066-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court accepted the guilty plea as valid, convicted the accused and, after weighing the mitigating effect of the plea against the seriousness of drug consumption offences and public interest in deterrence, imposed a custodial sentence of 9 months and a police supervision order of 2 years as proportionate and lawful under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and applicable authorities.
7 Apr 2022

SELVAM A/L SUPRAMANIAM 1. ) Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

BA-25-38-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-38-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application failed because the applicant did not plead the 15‑day delay issue and therefore the court would not consider it; on the merits the affidavits established that the delays were not inordinate and were justified by investigative steps and the procedural requirement to await the 38‑day remand and both reports, hence there was no procedural non‑compliance with section 4A POCA and the judicial review was dismissed.
30 Nov 2021

SUAH YONG LIM 1. PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH, MALAYSIA 2. KETUA POLIS NEGARA 3. KETUA POLIS NEGERI KELANTAN 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

JA-25-30-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-30-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to obtain mandatory leave under Order 53 r.3 and filed the judicial review outside the three-month limitation without applying for extension inter partes; these requirements are mandatory and cannot be cured by Order 1A, therefore the preliminary objection succeeds.
8 Oct 2021

CHNG TEIK WEI 1. PENGERUSI, LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. KETUA POLIS NEGERI TERENGGANU 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-25-29-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-29-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Extension of time is refused because the applicant failed to adduce material evidence showing good and satisfactory reasons for the delay; bare assertions about MCO, inability to access counsel, financial hardship and ignorance of the law are insufficient, and there was no evidence of attempts to obtain travel permits; consequently the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the leave application.
30 Sept 2021

LOO KAI SHIEN 1. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. KETUA POLIS NEGERI KELANTAN 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-25-95-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-95-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found respondents complied with statutory and constitutional requirements: Inquiry Officer validly appointed; delays were explained and not inordinate; remand order complied with s4(1); Deputy Registrar entered applicant in Register before PSO so ss12 and 15 complied; Article 151(1)(a) obligations do not extend to PSO; s4A does not require simultaneous submission; Board was properly constituted; unlawful gaming conduct fell within Article 149. Therefore judicial review application to quash the PSO failed and was dismissed.
21 Sept 2021

MOHD HAFIZUDDIN BIM MEJAH 1. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI 2. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH MALAYSIA 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA, POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 4. KETUA POLIS DAERAH KOTA SETAR

Citation

BA-25-52-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-52-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The PSO was quashed because a material procedural impropriety existed: conflicting records as to whether the applicant was registered under para 1 or para 2 of Part I First Schedule created doubt as to which statutory limb the Board applied; where liberty is affected the doubt is resolved in favour of the applicant, de minimis cannot cure the defect, and no corrective affidavit was filed to dispel the inconsistency, rendering the PSO null and void.
15 Sept 2021

VINCENT NG KOK YUNG (No. K/P: 921018-13-5437) 1. PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. KETUA POLIS NEGARA 3.

Citation

BA-25-31-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-31-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the judicial review: applying binding Federal Court precedent, organising and promoting unlawful gaming can constitute a threat to public order under Article 149 and POCA; the obligation to refer a POCA arrest to the DPP is mandatory but the seven-day timing is directory and a short delay did not prejudice the applicant; delays in investigation and inquiry were satisfactorily explained and not inordinate; s21A justified withholding the applicant's recorded statement in the public interest; Board appointments and registration were valid, and absent Magistrate notes the…
25 Jun 2021

WONG CHEE WOI 1. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. KETUA POLIS NEGERI SELANGOR 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-25-76-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-76-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found on the facts that statutory procedures were complied with: applicant was informed of grounds and rights (including interpreter and right to counsel), remand orders were properly obtained, referral to DPP was within time using Interpretation Acts computation, Inquiry and report delays were not inordinate given factual explanations, and the Board was properly constituted; therefore no procedural illegality was established and the judicial review application was dismissed.
15 Feb 2021

MOHAMAD SAIFUL AZHAR BIN MOHD AMIN (NO. K/P : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

JB-41H-25-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-41H-25-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the appellant's oral admission in open court that P8 reflected his previous convictions constituted a valid mode of proof under the "any other mode" provision of section 400 CPC and was properly considered for sentencing; accordingly the Magistrate lawfully imposed 4 years' imprisonment under section 15(4) Prevention of Crime Act 1959 and the appeal against sentence failed.
26 Nov 2019

Abd Khalid Bin Hussin

Citation

AB-42S-7-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-42S-7-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court reduced total imprisonment to 15 years (5 years under section 354 to remain; 20 years under section 376B reduced to 10 years) to reflect mitigating factors (age, guilty plea, first offence) while upholding the need to denounce and protect victims; whipping order was set aside as illegal because section 376B is not within the exceptions to section 289 CPC for males over fifty; police supervision order under section 295(1A) was set aside because the provision does not specifically reference incest under section 376B.