Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Habeas corpus

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

PANNIR A/L SUBRAMANIAM 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGERI JOHOR

Citation

BA-44-145-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-145-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant's allegations did not establish non-compliance with the procedural requirements that are the sole basis for judicial review under s11C(1); affidavits, investigation materials and recorded statements provided sufficient basis for police 'reason to believe' under s3(1); notification obligations under s28A CPC and constitutional provisions were met; SAC Mazleen was properly authorised to report under s3(2)(c); therefore the habeas corpus application fails and is dismissed.
17 Apr 2026

JUNAEDY BIN MANGATI 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK BINTULU, SARAWAK 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Citation

WA-44-1-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-1-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court concluded on evidence that Form III notice was served and the applicant was informed of his rights; applicant's inconsistent and contradictory affidavits destroyed his credibility and amounted to approbation and reprobation; therefore the application to discharge the detention order failed and was dismissed.
2 Mar 2026

NOOR MUHAMAD BIN MOHD TAIB

Citation

NA-44-22-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-44-22-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to prove any mandatory procedural non-compliance that would invalidate the detention order: the Minister lawfully considered the investigative reports (inclusive of s4(1) statements), alleged defects in the recorded statement were minor and credibly explained, and the Advisory Board lawfully exercised its procedural discretion and non-disclosure powers under s14 and Article 151(3); accordingly habeas corpus was refused.
27 Feb 2026

Emranshah Bin Ibrahim 1. ) PENGERUSI, LEMBAGA PENASIHAT 2. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA 4. ) PENGUASA, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM

Citation

WA-44-153-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-153-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held applicant failed to prove any mandatory procedural non‑compliance or mala fide; affidavits established lawful and regular arrest and detention, Advisory Board had considered and rejected the applicant's complaints, delays were reasonable, and therefore the habeas corpus application is without merit and must be dismissed.
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.
3 Dec 2025

ROZIMEI BIN HUSSIN 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. ) PENGARAH, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR

Citation

BA-44-94-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-94-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Detention order upheld because respondents discharged onus to show procedural compliance: delays were explained and occurred within 'practicable speed' where no statutory time limit existed; the inquiry officer and investigator provided credible, detailed reasons for their timelines; timing entries in the recorded statement were consistent when read with explanatory entries and did not undermine authenticity; arresting officer deposed that reasons were communicated and that account was uncontested by applicant. Therefore no mandatory procedural breach was proven and habeas corpus relief was r…
11 Nov 2025

MUHAMMAD MALIKI BIN ABDUL HALIM 1. ) LEFTENAN KOLONEL-SHAIFULLIZAN BIN ABD AZIZ (PEGAWAI PEMERINTAH BATALION KE-5 REJIMEN RENJER DIRAJA) 2. ) PIHAK BERKUASA SIDANG PANGLIMA BRIGED KELAPAN INFANTRI MALAYSIA 3. ) PANGLIMA ANGKATAN TENTERA MAL

Citation

01(f)-29-09/2024(D) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-29-09/2024(D) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Court held that detention from 26 August 2014 to 3 July 2015 was lawful because section 96(3) AFA mandatorily remands an accused for court-martial after investigation and Rule 16(1) AFRP authorises close arrest before and during trial; no express remand order is required under s.96(3); Article 5(1) was not breached; therefore the appellant's appeal is dismissed and the Court of Appeal's decision is upheld.
1 Oct 2025

AIREEN SHAZNA AMIR BINTI AMIR

Citation

BA-44-69-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-69-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Respondents discharged the burden to prove lawful detention: investigation and inquiry reports were prepared with credible explanations and within the 60‑day investigatory period mandated by s 3(2) of the Act and s 54(2) of the Interpretation Acts; the Form 1 discrepancy did not prejudice the Applicant's right to make representations; therefore the Detention Order was lawful and the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
25 Sept 2025

MOHAMAD NOR HAMIZI BIN NASIR 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. ) PENGARAH, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM JOHOR

Citation

BA-44-6-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-6-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Respondents discharged the burden: investigation and inquiry reports were prepared with credible explanations and within the 60-day limit, and the Form 1 omissions were directory causing no prejudice; therefore the Detention Order was lawful and the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
25 Sept 2025

YAP THIAM HUAT 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK BINTULU, SARAWAK 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Citation

WA-44-87-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-87-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The writ is granted because the investigating officer who prepared the s3(3) report was part of the arrest team, creating a reasonable apprehension of bias and breaching natural justice; the delays by the inquiry officer (15 days) and Deputy Minister (23 days) were not fatal and did not vitiate the detention order.