Zulkefli Makinudin JCA:

Introduction

[1] There are four appeal cases fixed for hearing before us namely Civil AppealsNo: J-01-90-06, J-01-91-06, J-01-101-06 and J-01-102-06. In all these four appeal cases the four Appellants are appealing against the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner of the High Court at Johor Bahru in dismissing their respective application for a declaration that the restriction order issued against them by the Deputy Minister of Internal Security ("Deputy Minister") under s 2(2) of the Restricted Residence Act 1933 (Revised 1989) ("the Act") is null and void and of no effect. Mr Shanmugam, learned counsel who appeared for all the four Appellants and the learned senior federal counsel agreed at the outset that since the issues raised and the factual circumstances in all the four appeal cases are the same, it is only necessary for the Court to hear and decide in only one of the appeal cases and the decision of that appeal case shall be made binding on the other three appeal cases. It was agreed that the Court would hear argument and decide on the appeal by the appellant in Civil AppealNo: J-01-90-06. Learned counsel for the other three Appellants and the learned senior federal counsel for the respondents informed the Court that they would be adopting the same submission as in Appeal CaseNo: J-01-90-06 for all the three other appeal cases in J-01-91-06, J-01-101-06 and J-01-102-06.

Background Facts

[2] The relevant background facts of Civil Appeal CaseNo: J-01-90-06 are as follows:-

[3] The appellant, Keng Kien Hock was arrested on 6 December 2005 in Batu Pahat at about 1.30pm under a warrant of arrest and detention issued by the Deputy Minister under s 2(1) of the Act and brought to Batu Pahat District Police Headquarters. Thereafter on the same day at 6pm the appellant was taken to Kluang Prison, Johor and detained therein until 30 December 2005. On 30 December 2005 the Deputy Minister issued a restriction order under s 2(2) of the Act restricting the appellant in Mukim Kulim, Daerah Kulim, Kedah for three (3) years commencing 30 December 2005 and placing the appellant under police supervision for the said period.

Issues For Determination

[4] At the hearing of the appeal before us, learned counsel for the appellant indicated that the appellant will be raising only three issues for determination as follows:-

(1) Whether the appellant's prolonged detention at the Kluang Prison before the issuance of the restriction order dated 30 December 2005 by the Deputy Minister was unlawful and null and void as the Deputy Minister took 24 days from the date of arrest to issue the restriction order under s 2(2) of the Act.

(2) Whether the appellant's detention at Kluang Prison, Johor from 6 December 2005 to 30 December 2005 together with other prisoners therein amounts to a detention in Civil Prison.

(3) Whether the officer-in-charge of the Kluang Prison, Johor had complied with s 3(2) of the Act and in particular whether warrant of release as in Form D of the Schedule to the Act has been issued.

Decision Of the Court On Appeal

2(1) Whenever it shall appear to the Minister on such written information and after such enquiry as he may deem necessary that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any person should be required to reside in any particular areas or should be prohibited from entering in