Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Restriction order under dangerous drugs (special preventive measures) act 1985

  • 25 Nov 2025

    YESYURUN A/L CHANDRAN 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA , POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA POLIS DAREAH JOHOR BAHRU SELATAN, JOHOR

    Citation
    JB-25-2-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JB-25-2-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The application succeeds in part because the DMHA failed to properly exercise discretion under Section 6(3) due to contradictory reporting locations in affidavit and the restriction order, and the decision-making chain was tainted by defective inquiry/reporting arising from the use and absence of an independent Tamil interpreter; these defects are substantive and fatal in the preventive detention context. Other grounds fail because timing and delay issues were not shown to breach mandatory statutory limits and the authorizing officer lawfully extended detention.

    • Preventive detention
    • Restriction order under dangerous drugs (special preventive measures) act 1985
    • Procedural fairness and exercise of discretion
    • Interpreter rights and bias
    • Statutory compliance and timing

  • 25 Jul 2024

    MOHD AZAM BIN AB RAZAK 1. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGERI PERAK 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

    Citation
    DA-25-4-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    DA-25-4-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court held the judicial review applications lacked merit because restriction orders under s6(3) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 are legally distinct from detention orders under s6(1); therefore mandatory requirements applicable to detention orders (written reasons, provision of recorded statements and advisory board representation) do not apply to restriction orders, respondents' affidavits provided sufficient basis for ministerial satisfaction, and several issues raised were previously adjudicated (res judicata); accordingly the applications were dismissed.

    • Judicial review
    • Certiorari
    • Restriction order under dangerous drugs (special preventive measures) act 1985
    • Preventive detention vs restriction orders
    • Natural justice and procedural fairness
    • Res judicata

  • 25 Jul 2024

    MUHAMMAD TAUFIQ AJMAL BIN JAMALUDIN 1. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGERI KELANTAN 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

    Citation
    DA-25-3-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    DA-25-3-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court held that restriction orders under section 6(3) LLPK are distinct from detention orders under section 6(1); therefore statutory procedural protections applicable to detention (detailed written reasons, recorded statements for representation, specified extension timings) do not apply to section 6(3) restriction orders. The affidavits and investigation material supplied satisfied the statutory threshold for ministerial satisfaction under section 6(3), and issues already finally determined in the habeas corpus proceedings were barred by res judicata. Accordingly the judicial review app…

    • Judicial review
    • Certiorari
    • Restriction order under dangerous drugs (special preventive measures) act 1985
    • Procedural compliance
    • Natural justice
    • Res judicata