Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Police supervision orders

Legal area

Court

29 Jul 2025

Hamizal Bin Osman

Citation

BA-62JS-4-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-62JS-4-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

After maximum evaluation the court accepted the complainant's account of penetration and lack of consent as proved and supported by corroborative evidence (family witnesses, scene photographs, medical findings). Contradictions in statements were minor and did not destroy overall credibility. Defence was uncorroborated denial and failed to raise reasonable doubt. Therefore accused convicted under Section 376(1) Penal Code and sentenced accordingly.
6 Aug 2023

MICHAEL LIEW

Citation

TA-83-278-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-83-278-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was subject to a valid police supervision order and breached the curfew by being outside his registered residence between 8.00 pm and 6.00 am; the offence is one of strict liability so self‑induced intoxication is not a defence under s85 Penal Code and the defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction under Section 15(2)(f) APJ 1959 was therefore justified and the appropriate sentence was two years' imprisonment commencing from date of conviction.
16 Jun 2023

MUHAMMAD QAYYUM BIN MAZLAN

Citation

MA-83-242-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MA-83-242-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case: they did not adduce authoritative evidence establishing that the accused resided within Mukim Bukit Baru nor that Tol Lipat Kajang was outside that mukim (no maps, expert or documentary proof and witnesses were uncertain), the charge lacked specificity by not identifying the precise subsection of s15(2), and mens rea is required for the offence charged so the prosecution could not rely on strict liability; accordingly the accused could not safely be called on to enter defence and was acquitted under Section 15(1) Prevention of Crime Act 1959.
19 Dec 2021

1. KHOR KOK CHIANG 2. TEH SIN YAW 1. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. KETUA POLIS NEGERI KELANTAN 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

JA-25-34-07/2021 & JA-25-35-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-34-07/2021 & JA-25-35-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed outside the three-month time limit (out by three days) without any application for extension, rendering the court without jurisdiction; additionally the challenges related to pre-order events were academic because they were superseded by the supervision/detention order and section 15B of the Prevention of Crime Act bars judicial review except on procedural compliance, so the application had no sustainable remedy.
16 Aug 2021

JOEL LIM DE QUAN 1. ABDUL RASID BIN SUDIN - PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 3. KETUA POLIS TERENGGANU 4. KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 5. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-374-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-374-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the record that the Inquiry Officer's report was prepared and submitted under s10(2) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959; any references to s10(1) were clerical/typographical errors that caused no prejudice; therefore the Board validly confirmed the findings and issued the Police Supervision Order; the judicial review application was dismissed and costs awarded to respondents.
15 Aug 2019

WAN MOHD ZULFAZLI BIN AZIZ NO KP: 821007-09-5179 1. ) DATO ABDUL RAZAK BIN MUSA PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. ) LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGERI PERLIS 4. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 5. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-129-03-2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-129-03-2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found no proven procedural non-compliance: section 12 registration was effected; section 13 is permissive (not mandatory) and non-compliance with it was not established as a prerequisite to valid registration; affidavits established compliance with section 4A (submission of complete investigation report) notwithstanding lawful non-disclosure under section 21A. Therefore the Police Supervision Order under section 15(1) dated 28.2.2019 was lawful and the judicial review application failed.
25 Sept 2018

Dato' Mohamad Fazin bin Mahmud Timbalan Pengerusi Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah Jong Mei Fong (No. K/P: 880211-52-6474)

Citation

W-01(A)-418-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-418-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that omission of the verbatim statutory phrasing from the Police Supervision Orders did not render the orders invalid where the Board had in fact considered and been satisfied of the statutory preconditions under s.15(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959; the PPPs were therefore not fatally defective, the High Court's certiorari orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed.
25 Sept 2018

Dato' Abdul Razak bin Musa Nur Marlina binti Daraman (No. K/P: 791011-06-5146)

Citation

W-01(A)-416-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-416-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's certiorari orders because omission of the literal statutory recital in the Police Supervision Orders was not a fatal procedural defect where the Board had in fact considered and been satisfied of the statutory preconditions; the PPPs were valid and the High Court erred in quashing them.
25 Sept 2018

Dato' Abdul Razak bin Musa Irene Pedro (No. K/P: 850501-12-5372

Citation

W-01(A)-411-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-411-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that omission of the literal statutory phrase from the Police Supervision Orders was not fatal where the Board's satisfaction as required by section 15(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 was demonstrated in the Board's decision and the record; there is no statutory form obliging verbatim recitals in the order, and therefore the orders were valid and the High Court's certiorari orders quashed.
25 Sept 2018

Dato Abdul Razak bin Musa Pengerusi Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah Muhamad Noor bin Long Ahmad

Citation

W-01(A)-417-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-417-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the absence of the exact statutory wording from the Police Supervision Orders was not a fatal procedural defect because the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 does not prescribe a statutory form and the Board had in substance satisfied the statutory preconditions (registration and necessity for control and supervision). Accordingly the High Court's quashing of the PPPs for want of that wording was wrong; the appeals are allowed and the PPPs remain valid.