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

Case Significance

Illustrates the procedural safeguards governing preventive detention under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and the limited scope of habeas corpus review, which does not extend to imposing procedural requirements beyond those the statute and the authorities prescribe where the statutory procedure has been followed.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a two-year detention under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985. The applicant, who was detained at a rehabilitation centre, sought his release on a number of grounds directed at the procedure by which he had been detained. He contended that there had been non-compliance with the mandatory procedures of the Act, including delay by the investigating officer and the inquiry officer in investigating and preparing the statutory reports required under sections 3(3) and 5(4); that the Minister was required to explain the reason for any delay in issuing the detention order under section 6(1); that there were contradictions in the recording of his statement under section 4; and that he had not been informed of the grounds of his detention under section 3(1), in breach of Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution. The court examined each ground against the statutory scheme and the governing authorities. Applying, among others, the Federal Court's decision in Lee Kew Sang v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, it held that it was not the function of the court to create new requirements or procedures beyond those the Act and the authorities lay down, and it rejected the complaints the applicant advanced, finding no established procedural non-compliance that would render the detention unlawful. Having found none of the grounds made out, the court dismissed the application for habeas corpus. The court's approach reflects the settled position that, in reviewing a preventive detention, its role is confined to ensuring that the procedural safeguards the statute lays down have been observed, and that it will not read into the Act additional requirements, nor treat every asserted irregularity as fatal, where the mandatory steps have in substance been complied with. The judgment is a useful illustration of the procedural safeguards governing preventive detention under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and of the limited scope of habeas corpus review where the statutory procedure has been followed.