Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Substantial body of persons

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2026

AZMIR BIN SHAMSUDDIN

Citation

AA-44-26-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-44-26-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because mandatory and directory procedural requirements under Act 316 and related provisions were complied with: investigation and inquiry reports were completed within the 60-day statutory period, the alleged delay did not amount to procedural non-compliance, and the detention documents disclose participation in a substantial body of persons; judicial review under s11C(1) is limited to procedural defects only.
14 Nov 2022

Mohd Fuad bin Yahya 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) Pengarah Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Machang Kelantan 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-44-205-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-205-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and gathered witness statements with convenient speed given the circumstances and scope of the inquiry, and the Deputy Minister's grounds and statement of facts sufficiently evidenced the applicant's involvement with a substantial body of persons as defined in Selva Vinayagam; therefore the detention complied with statutory and constitutional preconditions and the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
13 Dec 2021

THANASEELAN A/L MANIWANNAN 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK, SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR

Citation

BL-44-18-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-44-18-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to establish any non‑compliance with the procedural requirements of Act 316: no statutory obligation required Lembaga Penasihat to issue subpoenas and applicant did not request them or an adjournment; the detention order contained factual assertions showing the applicant acted as intermediary receiving supply and paid for distribution which sufficed to show association with a substantial body of persons; s28A CPC was not applicable to the arrest under s3(1) of Act 316; the 38‑day investigation period was reasonable within the 60‑day statutory investigation window; accordingly…
23 Aug 2021

SHAHRIZAL BIN ABDULLAH 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 4. KETUA POLIS PULAU PINANG

Citation

BA-25-98-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-98-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the RO was lawfully made: the Inquiry Officer's report and the Deputy Minister's affidavit together demonstrated that the applicant was part of a substantial body of persons and that the Deputy Minister applied his mind; any delay in the investigative report was not inordinate; s 3(4) lawfully validated custody prior to the RO; and s 17 registration is not a prerequisite to issuing the RO. Consequently the judicial review application was dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

AZMIR BIN SHAMSUDDIN

Mohd Fuad bin Yahya 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) Pengarah Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Machang Kelantan 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA

THANASEELAN A/L MANIWANNAN 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK, SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR

SHAHRIZAL BIN ABDULLAH 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 4. KETUA POLIS PULAU PINANG