MOHD SUKRI BIN ABDUL RAHMAN v 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. ) PENGARAH, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK BATU GAJAH PERAK

Case Significance

A habeas corpus challenge to preventive detention under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 that failed, the court holding the statutory procedure under section 9 complied with and an undated Form 1 not a mandatory defect.

This High Court (Shah Alam) decision concerns an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a detention order made under the preventive-detention regime for dangerous drugs. The applicant filed the writ to challenge a Detention Order dated 17 October 2023 made under section 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (Act 316). The Detention Order had been issued by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, and under it the applicant was detained for a period of two years from 17 October 2023 at the Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak (rehabilitation centre) at Batu Gajah, Perak. A subsequent Transfer Order under section 15(1) of the Act was made on 5 November 2024 to move the applicant to another rehabilitation centre to serve the balance of the detention.

The issues the court addressed included whether the explanation given as to the time taken by the police investigating officer and the Ministry of Home Affairs investigating officer to prepare their respective reports was credible and acceptable, and whether the respondents had failed to comply with the requirements of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985. The applicant, whose counsel raised various procedural objections, was said to be in poor health.

On the affidavit evidence sworn by the deponents for the respondents, the court found that the procedural requirements under section 9 of the Act and rule 3 of the relevant regulations had been complied with, and that no meritorious issue had been raised by the applicant's counsel. It held that although one form (Borang 1) was undated, this was not a mandatory procedural defect under section 9 of the Act, referring to authorities including Lew Kew Sang v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia and the Federal Court decision in Timbalan Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri, Malaysia v Ong Beng Chuan on the parameters for challenging such detention orders.