YAP THIAM HUAT v 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK BINTULU, SARAWAK 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Case Significance

Instructive on the availability of habeas corpus against a preventive detention order under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 where the process of preparing the mandatory investigation report breaches natural justice, even where a complaint of delay in issuing the order does not.

This High Court decision in the Criminal Division at Kuala Lumpur concerns a writ of habeas corpus challenging a preventive detention order under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, which the court granted for a breach of natural justice. The applicant had been detained for two years at a rehabilitation centre in Sarawak under a detention order made in March 2025 by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs under section 6(1) of the Act, and he challenged it against the Deputy Minister, the senior superintendent of the centre and the Inspector-General of Police. He raised three issues: a breach of the principles of natural justice in the process by which the investigating officer prepared the complete investigation report under section 3(3) of the Act; a fifteen-day delay by the Ministry's inquiry officer in submitting the mandatory report to the Minister under section 5(4); and non-compliance with section 6(1) read with section 54(2) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 arising from a twenty-three-day delay by the Deputy Minister in issuing the detention order. The court, per Azhar Abdul Hamid J, considered these in light of the settled principles governing preventive detention. On the complaint of delay in issuing the order, it agreed with the Federal Counsel that there was no merit, holding that no specific law required the Minister to make his decision immediately upon receiving the relevant reports, and that an order issued immediately or within too short a period would invite the perception that the Minister had acted mechanically without giving the reports proper consideration. However, on the first issue the court found that there had been a breach of the principles of natural justice against the applicant in the process of producing the complete investigation report. On that ground it held that there was merit in the application and allowed the writ of habeas corpus. The judgment is instructive on the availability of habeas corpus where the process of preparing the mandatory investigation report offends natural justice, even though a complaint of delay in issuing the detention order does not.