Preventive detention under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act requires substantial involvement with a group engaged in drug trafficking, notwithstanding technical arguments against the order.

Introduction

[1] All sections mentioned hereinafter refer to the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 . The applicant was detained by an order under the hand of the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs ("Minister") under subsection 6(1) at a detention center for 2 years commencing 15 October 2021 ("the detention order"). On 18 November 2021, the Minister issued an order suspending the said detention order under subsection 7(1) and issued a restriction order restricting the applicant to Mukim Kota Tinggi, Daerah Kota Tinggi, Johor several with conditions ("the restriction order").

[2] The matter before me is the substantive hearing of the judicial review application for an order essentially to quash the suspension of the detention order made on 18 November 2021 ie the restriction order and by extension the detention order.

[3] In the written submission dated 12 October 2022 the applicant confined his challenge to the following 4 grounds:

(a) that the "grounds and statement of facts" on which the detention order was premised does not show that the applicant was a part of a substantial body of persons whose action is prejudicial to public order which is a non-compliance of art 149 of the Federal Constitution;

(b) the drug "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine" (MDMA) stated in the "grounds and statement of facts" is not a dangerous drug stated in the First Schedule of the Dangerous Drug Act 1952;

(c) non-compliance of s 5(4) by the inquiry officer in not carrying out the inquiry "with all convenient speed", preparing his report and presenting the report to the Minister; and

(d) failure to state and explain in detail the perimeters or limits of the area in which his movements are restricted.

[4] On 13 December 2022, I dismissed the application. In making the decision I kept in mind that preventive detention laws are a serious invasion of personal liberty and that the safeguards provided by the statute in question must be strictly construed and observed in favour of liberty. I am also aware of the principle that an applicant challenging his detention or restriction to any place is entitled to avail himself of any technical defect that may invalidate the order that deprives him of his liberty. Since the restriction order emanated from the detention order, both orders cannot be truncated and must be viewed together as they are successive in one and the same process it is successive (Lei Meng v. Inspektor Wayandiana Abdullah & Ors And Other Appeals, )

Whether Applicant Involved With A Substantial Body Of Persons?

[5] I will now address the first ground raised by the applicant that the set of allegation of facts on which the detention order was premised do not establish that the applicant was a member of a substantial body of persons trafficking in dangerous drugs. The act is a law made under art 149 of the Federal Constitution and its preamble states that act was enacted to provide for the preventive detention of persons associated with any activity relating to or involving the trafficking in dangerous drugs. It is now settled law that an order of detention under the act can only be made against a person if that person has been or is associated with a substantial body of persons who are carrying out the activities in relation to trafficking dangerous drugs. It has been held in Selva Vinayagam Sures v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors, that a person acting alone does not come within the ambit of the act.

[6] In Selva Vinayagam Sures, the Federal Court interpreted the phrase "a substantial body of persons" as follows:

[44]... In the light of the