WONG KEAT WAI v 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA POLIS KUALA LUMPUR 4. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Case Significance

Illustrates the scope of judicial review of a restriction order under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 — while preventive detention demands strict compliance with statutory safeguards, there is no requirement for the Minister to issue the order immediately on receiving the statutory reports or to give reasons for any delay.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur, sitting in its Special Powers Division, concerns an application for judicial review of a Restriction Order made under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985. The applicant had been arrested and remanded for 60 days under the Act, and a Restriction Order was then issued by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs under sub-section 6(3), requiring him to undergo restriction of residence. He challenged the order, naming the Deputy Minister, the Inspector-General of Police, the Kuala Lumpur police chief and the Government as respondents, and sought certiorari to quash the order and a declaration that it and the restriction were void, together with his discharge.

The applicant advanced four grounds of non-compliance with the Act: that the drug named in the investigation report did not exist or was not listed in the relevant Part of the First Schedule to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, rendering the order defective; that there had been a failure to inform him of the grounds of his detention and restriction, contrary to section 6 of the Act read with Article 151 of the Federal Constitution; and non-compliance with sub-sections 3(3) and 6(3) of the Act. The court, mindful of the principle that preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty requiring strict compliance with statutory safeguards, examined each ground against the statutory scheme and the authorities.

The court rejected all four grounds. Among other things it held, following authority affirmed by the Federal Court, that there was no requirement for the Deputy Minister to issue the Restriction Order immediately or as soon as possible upon receiving the statutory reports, nor to give reasons showing the order was issued with all convenient speed or to explain any delay. Finding no merit in any of the grounds, the court dismissed the application with no order as to costs. The judgment illustrates the scope of judicial review of a restriction order under the preventive-measures regime.