Back
2025 MarsdenLR 6186
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
BADAN PEGUAM MALAYSIA & ORS – Appellant
Versus
NOOR DELLHAN YAHAYA & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-21NCvC-113-10/2022]
The prohibition of a march by the police was unlawful as it violated the amended Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, which allows street protests, and partial restrictions do not constitute false imprisonment.
Headnote:(A) Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 - Sections 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15 - Federal Constitution - Rights of assembly - The court found the 1st Defendant acted ultra vires by prohibiting a march to Parliament, violating the Plaintiffs' rights under the PAA 2012. The prohibition was deemed unlawful as the PAA 2012 had been amended to allow street protests. The Plaintiffs were allowed to hold an assembly but were unlawfully prevented from marching. (Paras 55, 70, 73)
(B) False Imprisonment - Definition and scope - The court ruled that partial restriction of freedom does not constitute false imprisonment. Since participants were not prevented from leaving the assembly area, the claim was dismissed. (Paras 66, 68)
(C) Misfeasance in Public Office - The court held that the 1st Defendant's actions did not meet the threshold for misfeasance as they were based on a misinterpretation of the law rather than an abuse of power. (Paras 69, 72)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs organized a peaceful assembly on June 17, 2022, but were prohibited from marching to Parliament by the police. The 1st Defendant imposed conditions under the PAA 2012, which were contested by the Plaintiffs as unlawful.
Findings of Court:
The court declared that the prohibition was ultra vires and that the Plaintiffs had achieved their objective of the assembly, awarding nominal damages of RM1.
Issues: Whether the Defendants breached the PAA 2012, if their actions constituted false imprisonment, and if the prohibition violated constitutional rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the prohibition by the 1st Defendant was unlawful due to amendments in the PAA 2012 that allowed street protests, and partial restrictions do not equate to imprisonment.
Result: Declaration issued; other claims dismissed; nominal damages of RM1 awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. violation of rights under paa 2012. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. chronology of events leading to assembly. (Para 16) |
| 3. breach of paa 2012 by defendants. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. illegality of conditions imposed. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 5. constitutional rights violations. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. defendants' arguments against plaintiffs' claims. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. consent requirements for assembly venue. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. interpretation of paa 2012 amendments. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 9. ocpd acted ultra vires. (Para 55 , 56) |
| 10. court's declaration on ocpd's actions. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
Introduction
[1] This civil suit was filed by the Plaintiffs pleading, inter alia, violation of their rights under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 ("the PAA 2012") and Federal Constitution , tort of false imprisonment and misfeasance in public office.
[2] The Plaintiffs had organised a peaceful assembly and march to take place on 17 June 2022, which they named: "Walk for Judicial Independence". The cause of their grievances, as pleaded in their Statement of Claim, is that the 1st Defendant, who was then the Officer-in-charge of the Police District of Dang Wangi, had prohibited the Plaintiffs, members of the Bar and some members of the public, who had assembled at a public carpark known as the Padang Merbok Public Carpark on the said date from marching to Parliament to deliver a memorandum to the then Prime Minister of Malaysia.
[3] After considering the evidence adduced during trial and submissions of learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and learned Senior Federal Counsel for the Defendants, I find that the 1st Defendant, in his capacity as the Officer-in-Charge of the Police District of Dang Wangi had acted ultra vires on 15 June 2022 and also on 17 June 2022. However, I decided that this Court ought to issue only one declaration, and not all the declarations sought by the Plaintiffs.
[4] While reading out my broad grounds, I have expressed my appreciation to counsel on both sides for their agreeing on the quantum of damages, ie that nominal damages of only RM1.00 be awarded to the 1st Plaintiff. This spared me from having to assess general damages for such a case — which is not a run-of-the-mill one.
The Parties In This Civil Suit
[5] The 1st Plaintiff is established under s 41 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 as a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, and with power subject to the said Act to sue and be sued in its corporate name.
[6] The 2nd Plaintiff is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya and was, at the material time, the President of the Malaysian Bar.
[7] The 3rd Plaintiff is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya and was, at the material time, the Vice-President of the Malaysian Bar.
[8] The 4th Plaintiff is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya and was, at the material time, the Secretary of the Malaysian Bar.
[9] The 5th Plaintiff is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya and was, at the material time, the Treasurer of the Malaysian Bar.
[10] As mentioned at the outset, the 1st Defendant is a senior Police officer and was, at the material time, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police District ("the OCPD") of the Dang Wangi Police District in Kuala Lumpur.
[11] The 2nd Defendant is a Police officer, and was, at the material time, serving at the headquarters of the Dang Wangi Police District, under the command of the 1st Defendant.
[12] The 3rd Defendant (the Royal Malaysian Police) is one of the public services established under art 132(1)(d) of the Federal Constitution ("the Constitution").
[13] The 4th Defendant is the Inspector-General of Police of Malaysia and may be held vicariously liable for the actions of the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant in performing their duties as Police officers.
[14] The 5th Defendant is the Minister responsible for the 3rd Defendant.
[15] The 6th Defendant is the Government of Malaysia and is, at all material ti
