The court affirmed the validity of the detention order under the Dangerous Drugs Act, emphasizing strict compliance with procedural requirements and the authority's burden to prove legality of detention.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of Shahir Rosli – Appellant vs Deputy Minister for Home Affairs Malaysia & Ors:

Case Overview and Outcome * The court affirmed the validity of the detention order under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, emphasizing strict compliance with procedural requirements and the authority's burden to prove the legality of detention (!) . * The application for Judicial Review was dismissed (!) . * The court upheld the legality of the detention order, confirming that proper procedure was followed throughout the individual's detention and representation process (!) . * The Detention Order was signed by Arbi bin Suhadat on the directive of the Deputy Minister on 22 June 2020, directing the Applicant to be detained for 2 years at the Simpang Renggam Correctional Centre (!) . * The Applicant was adequately informed of his rights and chose not to engage legal representation (!) .

Facts and Procedural History * The Applicant was arrested and detained under s 3 of the Act on 29 April 2020 (!) . * A full investigation report was submitted by Inspector Tan on 28 May 2020, leading to an investigation officer report on 15 June 2020 (!) (!) . * The Deputy Minister was satisfied that the Applicant was connected with drug trafficking activities detrimental to public order (!) . * The Detention Order was served on the Applicant with the Grounds of Detention and Statement of Facts on 22 June 2020 (!) . * The Applicant was informed of his rights to make representations to the Advisory Board and to be represented by a legal practitioner (!) (!) . * The Applicant returned Form 1 and notes on representation on 23 June 2020 (!) . * Two hearing dates were fixed: 9 July 2020 and 22 July 2020 (!) . * The hearing on 9 July 2020 was postponed at the Applicant's request to allow him to seek legal representation (!) . * During the hearing on 22 July 2020, the Applicant explicitly replied in the negative when asked if he wished to engage a legal practitioner and proceeded with the hearing on his own (!) . * The Advisory Board made recommendations to His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who consented to the continued detention (!) .

Legal Principles and Issues * The writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental instrument for safeguarding individuals against arbitrary and unlawful state action (!) . * The burden of satisfying the court that the detention is lawful lies throughout on the detaining authority (!) . * Procedural requirements in detention orders can be either mandatory or directory; a breach of a mandatory requirement renders the order invalid, while a breach of a directory requirement is not significant if there is substantial compliance with no prejudice (!) . * The court must look at the provisions of the law or rules to determine if there is a procedural requirement; it is not for the courts to create procedural requirements (!) . * The court found that the Applicant was properly informed of his rights to legal representation, as evidenced by the Form 1 he returned and his explicit refusal during the hearing (!) . * The Applicant's failure to exercise his right to legal representation cannot be placed as a denial of his rights once he has been advised of them (!) . * The right to be defended by a legal practitioner is a right of the person arrested, but it is not a duty of the Counsel requested, and the Counsel must be willing and able to represent (!) . * The Advisory Board proceedings are conducted in camera to protect national security, and facts whose disclosure would be against the national interest do not need to be disclosed (!) (!) . * The court found no procedural non-compliance by the Respondent and dismissed the application (!) .