NOOR KAYES HASHIM ULLAH @ NOOR KAYES BINTI HASIMULLAH v 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) KOMANDAN DEPOH TAHANAN IMIGRESEN TANAH MERAH KELANTAN 3. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

05hc-140-10-2024d Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 8 April 2025 • 05(HC)-140-10/2024(D) • 66 min read

42 cases cited (0 SG, 42 foreign)

Catchwords

habeas corpus United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees card section 6(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1959 section 6(3) of the Immigration Act 1959 Order of Removal section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1959 Order of Detention pending removal section 34(1) of the Immigration Act 1959 whether detention was unlawful such as to warrant the grant of a writ of habeas corpus interplay between the doctrine of separation of powers and the role of the judiciary as a check and balance on executive power balance the liberty of the individual against the power of the state to exercise the power of detention in the interests of maintaining national security personal liberty of the person duty of inquiry transgression of constitutionally permissible limits the meaning of “shall be liable to be removed” whether the Director-General properly exercised his discretion in making the order for the removal insufficient consideration of relevant factors length of time in detention that the use of the words “such period as may be necessary” the requirement of proportionality Article 5(1) read with Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution Alma Nudo Atenza v. PP & Another Appeal [2019] 5 CLJ 780 the measure used must be proportionate to the objective the courts have wide powers to craft relief wide discretion to mould the relevant relief to meet the needs of justice

Practice Areas

habeas corpus United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees card section 6(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1959 section 6(3) of the Immigration Act 1959 Order of Removal section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1959 Order of Detention pending removal section 34(1) of the Immigration Act 1959 whether detention was unlawful such as to warrant the grant of a writ of habeas corpus interplay between the doctrine of separation of powers and the role of the judiciary as a check and balance on executive power balance the liberty of the individual against the power of the state to exercise the power of detention in the interests of maintaining national security personal liberty of the person duty of inquiry transgression of constitutionally permissible limits the meaning of “shall be liable to be removed” whether the Director-General properly exercised his discretion in making the order for the removal insufficient consideration of relevant factors length of time in detention that the use of the words “such period as may be necessary” the requirement of proportionality Article 5(1) read with Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution Alma Nudo Atenza v. PP & Another Appeal 2019 5 CLJ 780 the measure used must be proportionate to the objective the courts have wide powers to craft relief wide discretion to mould the relevant relief to meet the needs of justice

Judges (3)

Hanipah binti Farikullah Coram Nallini Pathmanathan Delivered Rhodzariah binti Bujang Coram

Counsel (6)

Attorney General's Chambers Firm Habibah Nik & Co Firm Mohamad Wafiq bin Hafie Counsel Appellant Mohd Zain bin Ibrahim Counsel Respondent Nik Nasrun Nazmi bin Nik Mohamad Counsel Appellant Rahmath Nisa binti Segu Alavudin Counsel Respondent

Parties (4)

Kerajaan Malaysia Respondent TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA Respondent Komandan Depoh Tahanan Imigresen Tanah Merah Kelantan Respondent Noor Kayes Hashim Ullah @ Noor Kayes binti Hasimullah Appellant

Case Significance

NOOR KAYES HASHIM ULLAH @ NOOR KAYES BINTI HASIMULLAH v 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI... is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated April 8, 2025 (citation: 05hc-140-10-2024d). <p>The Federal Court considered a habeas corpus application concerning the detention of an individual. The Court examined the lawfulness of the detention and whether the detaining authority could justify the deprivation of liberty under the applicable law. The Court issued a writ of habeas corpus and made further orders to secure the applicant's safety.</p> The panel comprised Hanipah binti Farikullah, Nallini Pathmanathan and Rhodzariah binti Bujang, with Nallini Pathmanathan delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Mohamad Wafiq bin Hafie (counsel for appellant), Mohd Zain bin Ibrahim (counsel for respondent), Nik Nasrun Nazmi bin Nik Mohamad (counsel for appellant), Rahmath Nisa binti Segu Alavudin (counsel for respondent).

Key issues: habeas corpus.

Summary

The Federal Court considered a habeas corpus application concerning the detention of an individual. The Court examined the lawfulness of the detention and whether the detaining authority could justify the deprivation of liberty under the applicable law. The Court issued a writ of habeas corpus and made further orders to secure the applicant's safety.

What was the outcome of NOOR KAYES HASHIM ULLAH @ NOOR KAYES BINTI HASIMULLAH v 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI...?

<p>The Federal Court considered a habeas corpus application concerning the detention of an individual. The Court examined the lawfulness of the detent...

Statutes Cited

Child Act 2001 (Cap 611)

Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Ordinance 1958

s 6(1)

Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958

s 6(1)

Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)

s 25

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)

s 365

Federal Constitution

Art 4(1) Art 5(1) Art 5(2) Art 5(4) Art 8(1)

Immigration Act

s 32 s 33(2) s 34 s 34(1) s 35 s 6(1)(c) s 6(3)

Immigration Act 1959

s 6(1)(c)

Penal Code (Cap 574)

Prevention of Crime Ordinance 1959

s 15(4)

Cases Cited (42)

UK (4)

[2012] UKSC 54 [2013] 1 AC 745 [2014] UKSC 6 [2023] UKSC 42

AU (2)

[2004] HCA 49 [2023] HCA 37

MY (32)

[1953] MLJ 86 [1964] 1 MLJ 265 [1964] 30 MLJ 265 [1973] 2 MLJ 68 [1976] 2 MLJ 244 [1979] 1 MLJ 135 [1985] 1 CLJ 511 [1985] 2 MLJ 35 [1988] 1 CLJ 80 [1993] 3 CLJ 412 [1997] 1 CLJ 147 [1998] 4 CLJ 106 [2009] 5 MLJ 301 [2009] 6 CLJ 490 [2009] 6 CLJ 705 [2016] 9 CLJ 584 [2018] 3 CLJ 145 [2019] 4 AMR 619 [2019] 5 CLJ 780 [2020] 1 CLJ 747 [2021] 2 CLJ 579 [2021] 3 MLJ 759 [2021] 5 CLJ 581 [2021] 5 MLJ 209 [2021] 6 CLJ 199 [2022] 3 CLJ 177 [2022] 3 MLJ 203 [2022] 3 MLJ 356 [2022] 5 CLJ 1 [2023] 3 MLJ 829 [2024] 3 MLJ 342 [2024] 5 CLJ 549

IN (4)

AIR 1964 SC 1006 AIR 1966 SC 81 AIR 1970 SC 1401 AIR 1985 SC 207