Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Preventive detention orders

Legal area

Court

27 Jul 2023

MOHAMAD ZULFIKAR BIN MOHD AZMAN 1. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAH BATU GAJAH,PERAK 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Citation

BA-44-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found no procedural non‑compliance: Deputy Minister demonstrated adequate consideration and satisfaction via affidavit and documents; alleged contradictions were not material given the context of group involvement and use of accomplices; IO’s delay was reasonably explained and overall timeline (39 days) showed convenient speed within statutory limit; PSKDN’s averments indicated compliance with s5(3). Therefore the habeas corpus application failed and detention order stands.
27 Jan 2022

YOGALINGAM A/L GOVINDASAMY 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) Pengarah Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Machang Kelantan

Citation

BA-44-122-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-122-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although most procedural challenges failed (inconsistencies were typographical, provisions such as s.12 and s.16 are empowering not mandatory, and investigator's delay was reasonable), the detention order was unlawful because it failed to establish that the applicant was a member of a 'substantial body of persons' as required under Article 149 and interpreted in Selva Vinayagam; that deficiency alone justified issuing the writ and immediate release.
8 Apr 2021

THINAKARAN A/L RAMANATHAN 1. ) 1. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. ) 2. PEGAWAI INKUIRI, KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI 3. ) 3. PEGAWAI POLIS YANG MEMBUAT PENYIASATAN TERHADAP 4. ) 4. KETUA POLIS NEGARA 5. ) 5. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

PA-44-45-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-44-45-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The detention order was set aside because the detention was effected in breach of mandatory procedural requirements—specifically non-compliance with s4(3) Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (applying s28A CPC) resulting in denial of the constitutional right to consult and be defended by counsel during initial detention and recording of statements—thereby rendering the detention unlawful and entitling the applicant to immediate release by writ of habeas corpus.

Malaysia Case Law

MOHAMAD ZULFIKAR BIN MOHD AZMAN 1. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAH BATU GAJAH,PERAK 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA

YOGALINGAM A/L GOVINDASAMY 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) Pengarah Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Machang Kelantan

THINAKARAN A/L RAMANATHAN 1. ) 1. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. ) 2. PEGAWAI INKUIRI, KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI 3. ) 3. PEGAWAI POLIS YANG MEMBUAT PENYIASATAN TERHADAP 4. ) 4. KETUA POLIS NEGARA 5. ) 5. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA