Back
2021 MarsdenLR 653
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM
AWANG SARI LASIKAN LWN. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA & SATU LAGI
[Permohonan Jenayah No: BA-44-296-09/2020]
Ketidakpatuhan prosedur dalam penyediaan laporan siasatan mengakibatkan ketidakabsahan perintah tahanan dan pelanggaran hak di bawah undang-undang.
Headnote:(A) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 – Seksyen 6(1), Seksyen 3(3), Seksyen 11C dan Akta Fungsi-Fungsi Menteri 1969 – Permohonan Writ Habeas Corpus – Ketidakpatuhan prosedur dalam penyediaan laporan siasatan yang menyebabkannya tidak sah. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Ketidakpatuhan kepada prosedur mandatori dalam menentukan keabsahan perintah tahanan. (Paras 43-72)
(C) Prosedur dalam memastikan hak individunya terpelihara di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan. (Paras 69-75)
Facts of the case: Pemohon telah ditahan di Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak berdasarkan Perintah Tahanan bertarikh 9 Mac 2020 yang dikeluarkan oleh Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri tanpa mematuhi keperluan prosedur. Pemohon memohon untuk dibebaskan berdasarkan ketidakpatuhan dalam penyediaan dan penghantaran laporan siasatan. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court: Mahkamah mendapati terdapat ketidakpatuhan terhadap prosedur di mana laporan siasatan gagal disediakan dalam tempoh yang ditetapkan, menyebabkan perintah tahanan menjadi tidak sah. (Paras 39-40)
Issues: Ketidakpatuhan prosedur dalam penyediaan laporan siasatan dan penandatanganan Perintah Tahanan, serta kegagalan memberi peluang representasi dalam tempoh yang ditetapkan. (Paras 24-38)
Ratio Decidendi: Terdapat ketidakpatuhan prosedural yang ketara dalam proses pengeluaran Perintah Tahanan, menyebabkan hak Pemohon dilanggar di bawah undang-undang. (Paras 75)
Result: Permohonan Writ Habeas Corpus dibenarkan dan Pemohon dibebaskan dengan segera.
The grounds of appeal in this case primarily revolve around three key procedural issues that were identified by the court as having significant legal implications:
-
Non-compliance with procedural requirements in the preparation and submission of investigation reports: The appellant contends that the delay in the submission of the complete police investigation report was unreasonable and prejudicial, leading to the invalidity of the detention order. The court found that the delay was not justified and that such procedural lapses compromised the legality of the detention (!) (!) .
-
Improper issuance of the detention order by an unqualified or incorrectly identified authority: The appellant argues that the detention order was issued and signed by an individual not authorized under the relevant statutory provisions, and that the order was not signed by the correct designated officer as mandated by law. The court identified that the order was ex facie defective because it was issued by a person not properly authorized or identified in accordance with the statutory requirements (!) (!) .
-
Failure to observe the constitutional rights of the detainee, specifically the right to representation and timely consideration of representations: The appellant asserts that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under constitutional provisions, such as the right to be heard and the timely consideration of representations, were not upheld. The delay in convening the advisory board and the failure to consider the representations within the prescribed period constituted a breach of constitutional rights (!) (!) .
These procedural irregularities collectively form the basis for the appeal, emphasizing that violations of mandatory procedures and constitutional rights undermine the legality and validity of the detention order, warranting its quashing and the release of the detainee.
PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
[1] Ini merupakan permohonan Writ Of Habeas Corpus oleh Pemohon yang kini sedang ditahan di Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak, Simpang Renggam, Johor (selepas ini disebut sebagai PPA Simpang Renggam) di atas suatu Perintah Tahanan yang dikeluarkan oleh Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri bertarikh 9 Mac 2020 di bawah s 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) (selepas ini disebut sebagai Akta tersebut) yang mengarahkan supaya Pemohon di tahan di PPA Simpang Renggam selama dua (2) tahun mulai 9 Mac 2020.
[2] Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan permohonan Pemohon di lampiran [1]. Responden-responden yang terkilan dengan keputusan Mahkamah ini teiah memfailkan notis rayuan ke Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia atas keseluruhan keputusan.
Isu-Isu Yang Dibangkitkan
[3] Pihak-pihak telah menfailkan hujahan bertulis. Dalam hujahan bertulis, Peguam Pemohon teiah membangkitkan tiga ketidakpatuhan untuk pertimbangan dan keputusan mahkamah iaitu:-
a) Isu Pertama:
Ketidakpatuhan s 3(3) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (LLPK) 1985 apabila wujud kelewatan yang tidak munasabah dalam penyediaan dan penyerahan laporan lengkap siasatan polis bagi tujuan dikemukakan kepada pihak Menteri dalam negeri dan Pegawai Siasatan.
b) Isu kedua:
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peruntukan s 6(1) Akta tersebut dibaca bersama Akta Fungsi-Fungsi Menteri 1969 .
c) Isu ketiga:
Ketidakpatuhan perkara 151(1)(b) Perlembagaan Persekutuan dibaca bersama s 10 Akta tersebut.
Peruntukan Undang-Undang
[4] Adalah pentingnya pertama sekali rujukan dibuat kepada peruntukan di bawah s 11C Akta tersebut yang memperuntukkan:-
'(1) There shall be no judicial review in any court of, and no court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of, any act done or decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Minister in the exercise of their discretionary power in accordance with this Act, save in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act governing such act or decision.
(2) The exception in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in subsection (1) shall not apply where the grounds are as described in s 6A.'
[5] Rujukan juga perlu dibuat kepada kes Mahkamah Persekutuan iaitu Lee Kew Sang v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia and Ors , di mana Abdul Hamid Mohamad, Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan (ketika itu) menggariskan panduan seperti berikut:
"In our view, courts must give effect to the amendments. That being the law, it is the duty of the courts to apply them. So, in a habeas corpus application where the detention order of the Minister made under s 4(1) of the Ordinance or, for that matter, the equivalent sections. in ISA 1960 and DD(SPM) Act 1985, the first thing that the courts should do is to see whether the ground forwarded is one that falls within the meaning of procedural noncompliance or not. To determine the question, the courts should look at the provisions of the law or the rules that lay down the procedural requirements. It is not for the courts to create procedural requirements because it is not the function of the courts to make law or rules. If there is no such procedural requirement then there cannot be non-compliance thereof. Only if there is that there can be non-compliance thereof and only then that the courts should consider whether, on the facts, there has been non-compliance."
[6] Apa yang dimaksudkan dengan ketidakpatuhan prosedur telah diperjelaskan di dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan iaitu Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri v. Ong Beng Chuan , . Telah diputuskan dalam kes tersebut seperti berikut:-
'[6] The resultant matter for consideration is whether the breach is subject to judicial review. A right to judicial review when there is a breach of a procedural requirement in the making of a detention order under the Act was considered by this court in Muhammad Jailani Kasim v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors, [2006] 6 MLJ 403 FC in the following words:
The effect of a breach o
