Judicial review of detention under the Prevention of Crime Act requires strict adherence to procedural compliance; failure in such compliance can impact the legality of detention.

JUDGMENT

Collin Lawrence Sequerah J:

A) Introduction

[1] These are Habeas Corpus applications by the Applicant's above named. They are directed towards their remand under s 4(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 for a period of 21 days commencing 18 March 2020 until 7 April 2020.

[2] These applications were fixed for hearing on 6 April 2020 which is during the Second Phase of the Movement Control Order ("MCO") imposed by the Government of Malaysia pursuant to the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) Regulations 2020 [PU(A) 91/2020] ("PCID") in an effort to combat and to contain the spread of the Covid 19 pandemic in this country that has also spread across the face of the globe with devastating effect.

[3] Nonetheless, these applications were jointly argued in open court with the attendance of both counsel. It needs to be said therefore that despite the MCO being imposed, the wheels of the machinery of justice in this country do not necessarily come to a grinding halt. Consequently, there is still access to justice in these trying times.

B) Salient Facts

[4] Both Applicants were initially arrested on the 18 February 2020 and 19 February 2020 respectively under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ("SOSMA").

[5] After both Applicants were released from remand under the SOSMA, they were re-arrested by Inspector Ong Xiao Peng of the Royal Malaysian Police ("PDRM") on 17 March 2020 at 3:10 pm under s 3(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (" POCA ") at the premises of the Travers Road Police Station.

[6] The arrests were made as the police had reason to believe that there were grounds that warranted an inquiry to be conducted in respect of the Applicants.

[7] Pursuant to the detention of both Applicants under the POCA , Inspector Ong Xiao Peng lodged a police report, Travers Road Police Report No: 002187/20 regarding the arrest of the applicants.

[8] The said police report was annexed as exh "AT-1" in the affidavit in reply of Inspector Ahmad Taqiyuddin Muhammad and exh "FC-1" in the affidavit in reply of Inspector Frankie Chong Voon Kee respectively.

[9] The case file of both Applicants were thereafter submitted to the Deputy Public Prosecutor concerned in accordance with sub section 3(1A) of the POCA and a decision was made that there were reasons that warranted an inquiry to be held in respect of both Applicants.

[10] On 18 March 2020, the police made an application under s 4(1) of POCA to the Kuala Lumpur Magistrates court for a remand order for 21 days in respect of both Applicants.

[11] The reasons advanced for their detention and remand was that the Applicants were alleged to be involved in forging or falsifying documentation in order to facilitate illegal travel namely, "Pas Lawatan Kerja Sementara" or Temporary Work Pass for migrants and foreigners.

[12] The Applicants are also alleged to be involved in sourcing work opportunities for foreigners who possess such illegally obtained Temporary Work Pass.

[13] The application by the police for a remand order was allowed and both Applicants were ordered to be remanded for a period of 21 days with effect from 18 March 2020 and due to end on 7 April 2020 in accordance with s 4(1) of POCA .

[14] Hence the present application for the writ of Habeas Corpus by both Applicants. These applications were heard jointly as they involved common and identical issues.

C) Parties Submissions

Applicants

[15] Learned counsel for the Applicants raised several issues but the main issues can be summarized as follows:

i) The family members of the Applicants were not informed about the detention of the Applicants or the service of the detention orders on the Applicants;

ii) The family members of the Applicants alleged that they were not informed of and had no knowledge of the whereabouts of the Applicant's after their arrest;

iii) The Applicants were not informed of the grounds for their arrest;

iv) The learned Magistrate who made the remand order h