Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prevention of crime act 1959

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] GUNALAN A/L AYADURAY

Citation

CB-83-54-03/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-83-54-03/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved all statutory elements of s.15(2)(f): the accused was a registered person under a detention order suspended with conditions, the specific curfew condition was validly served and explained, the registered address was proven and the accused was absent from it between 8pm and 6am on the material date without special permission; constitutional challenges to remand under s.4 did not negate the continuing force of the detention order in this case because P4(C) was never set aside by any court; therefore guilt under s.15(2)(f) punishable under s.15(4) is established and conviction…
28 Jun 2022

Sri Sanjeevan a/l Ramakrishnan 1. ) ASP Poonnam E Keling 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-21NCvC-25-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-25-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Detention was unlawful because the condition for arrest under POCA (suspicion of organised violence) was not satisfied and the remand/detention breached mandatory procedural requirements (Section 4(1)(a) POCA); the habeas corpus ruling stood and rendered the remand period unlawful; the First Defendant committed the tort of false imprisonment in the course of employment and the Second and Third Defendants are vicariously liable; failure by Defendants to call material witnesses and produce photographs justified adverse inference and left Plaintiff's evidence of physical abuse unrebutted; accord…
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

VINOD RAJ A/L K. ANANTHAN (No. KP: 930524-14-6299) 1. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. PENGUASA KANAN, PUSAT PEMULIHAN KHAS, BENTONG, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-44-102-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-102-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that AKHN Bil. 8/2021 lawfully permitted initial filing of unperfected affidavits subject to undertaking and granted respondents leave to file perfected affidavits out of time; procedural objections caused no prejudice and were cured; challenges to earlier remand orders under section 4 POCA were superseded by the section 19A detention order and therefore irrelevant; the inquiry under section 9 POCA was conducted within the operative remand window and with reasonable speed; subregulation 5(4) is permissive and the Advisory Board validly engaged assisting officers under its regul…
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.
20 Sept 2021

CHIN SHEAT LEE 1. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. KETUA POLIS NEGERI SEMBILAN 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Citation

BA-25-30-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-30-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although organising and promoting unlawful gaming can fall within the ambit of 'organised violence' under POCA (binding Federal Court authority), the PSO was quashed because there was no affirmative assertion or adequate grounds that the applicant acted with or in association with a substantial body of persons; that omission rendered the PSO inconsistent with Article 149 and procedurally defective, and the applicant was entitled to release.
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…