SOO YIN HOCK v 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. ) PENGARAH, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR

Case Significance

Illustrates the court's supervisory scrutiny of preventive-detention procedure under the Dangerous Drugs Act (Special Preventive Measures) 1985 in a habeas corpus application, dismissing challenges where the mandatory statutory requirements were met.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a preventive-detention order. The applicant sought to challenge a detention order dated 20 December 2024 made under section 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Special Preventive Measures) 1985, ordering his detention for two years at the Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak (rehabilitation centre) at Simpang Renggam, Johor, although on the recommendation of the Advisory Board and by the direction of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong the detention order was continued but suspended to allow the applicant to undergo restrictions in a specified district. The applicant advanced several grounds: that a mistake by the Ministry's Inquiry Officer in referring to the wrong date of the police investigating officer's report, uncorrected by affidavit, was fatal; that the test of "convenient speed" applied to the operation of section 10 where the Deputy Minister issued the order some 55 days after the recommendation; that there had been a fourteen-day delay by the police officer in commencing the investigation and submitting the report; and that the respondents had not acted in good faith. The court examined each ground against the mandatory statutory requirements of the Act. It found that the investigating officer had prepared her report within the sixty-day time frame, that the procedural requirements had been complied with, and that a public officer performing official duties is presumed, following Mohamad Ezam bin Mohd Noor v Ketua Polis Negara, to have acted without personal motive or misuse of process, so there was no basis to question the affidavit evidence on oath. Concluding that the respondents had complied with the Act's mandatory requirements and that the applicant's challenges lacked merit, the court dismissed the application. The judgment is a useful illustration of the court's supervisory scrutiny of preventive-detention procedure in a habeas corpus application.