The Writ of Habeas Corpus application was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of whistleblower status, upholding the procedural integrity of the detention process under the Prevention of Crime Act.

JUDGMENT

Collin Lawrance Sequerah J:

A) Introduction

[1] This is an application by the Applicant for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to be issued for his release in respect of a Detention Order dated 14 May 2020 by the First Respondent under sub-section 19A(1) Prevention of Crime Act 1959 .

[2] The reasons cited inter alia, for the application are for non-compliance with the Federal Constitution, the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 and the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 .

B) Chronology Of Events

[3] On 17 March 2020 the Applicant was arrested at 3.10 pm. in connection with Travers police station police report no 002187/20 pursuant to s 3(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ( POCA ).

[4] On 18 March 2020 a warrant of detention to detain the Applicant for a period of 21 days commencing 18 March 2020 was issued by the Magistrates Court pursuant to s 4(1)(a) POCA .

[5] On 22 March 2020 the Applicant's file was referred to the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) pursuant to s 3(1A) POCA .

[6] On 27 March 2020 a written statement from the DPP was obtained. On 2 April 2020 Inspector of police, Ahmad Taqiyuddin, serves a complete report of investigation of the Applicant's case to Nor Jamilah Shuhadah binti Tohet, the Inquiry Officer, pursuant to s 4A POCA .

[7] On 7 April 2020 a warrant of detention is issued to detain the Applicant for a period of 38 days commencing 7 April 2020 by the Magistrates Court pursuant to s 4(2) (a) POCA .

[8] On 8 April 2020 Inspector of police Ahmad Taqiyuddin serves a complete report of investigation of the Applicant's case to the Crime Prevention Board pursuant to s 4A POCA .

[9] On 13 April 2020, the Inquiry Officer conducts an inquiry in respect of the Applicant pursuant to s 9 POCA . On 5 May 2020, the Inquiry Officer serves a report and findings of the case to the Crime Prevention Board pursuant to s 10(2) .

[10] On 14 May 2020 the Crime Prevention Board met to consider the complete report and findings of the case against the Applicant pursuant to s 10(3) POCA .

[11] On the same day, the Crime Prevention Board confirms the findings of the Inquiry Officer pursuant to s 10(3)(b) POCA . On the same day the Crime Prevention Board informs the Deputy Registrar of Crime to register the name of the Applicant in the Register pursuant to s 12 .

[12] On 14 May 2020, the Crime Prevention Board meets and is satisfied that the Applicant is part of a team of two persons or more who in association with each other and in pursuance of criminal activity, falls under the category of registrable persons under para 2, Part I, First Schedule POCA pursuant to s 10(3) (b) .

[13] The criminal activity is that the Applicant is a member of a syndicate involved in arranging for accommodation, offices and employment for Bangladesh citizens smuggled into Malaysia as well as obtaining Temporary Work Passes and tourist visas by hacking the Malaysian Immigration System (my IMMs).

[14] On 14 May 2020 the Crime Prevention Board issues a detention order against the Applicant for a period of two (2) years commencing 14 May 2020 pursuant to s 19A POCA .

C) Writ Of Habeas Corpus (Jurisdiction, Procedure And Juridical Basis)

[15] The Court's power and jurisdiction to entertain applications for habeas corpus emanate from the inherent powers granted to the superior courts under the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91) and the provisions of Chapter VIII of Part 2 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137).

[16] The relevant procedure relating to judicial review is governed by O 53 of the Rules of 2012.

[17] The rudimentary origins of the writ of habeas corpus can be traced back to the Magna Carta of King John which granted all free men immunity from illegal imprisonment although the co-relation between the Magna Carta and habeas corpus only took form with the enactment of the Habeas Corpus Acts of 1640 and 1679 in England.

[18] The founding fathers of America ensured that the concept and rights associated with the writ of habeas corpus featured prominently