Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3014
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SRI SANJEEVAN RAMAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
ASP POONNAM E KELING & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 01(f)-4-02/2024(W)]
A successful habeas corpus does not automatically establish false imprisonment; separate proof of unlawful detention is required.
Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Articles 5(1) and 5(2) - Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Section 3 and 4(1) - False imprisonment claim following unlawful detention - High Court found detention unlawful due to procedural non-compliance with POCA, leading to issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus - Court of Appeal reversed High Court's decision, emphasizing the doctrine of prospective overruling and the distinction between habeas corpus and false imprisonment claims. (Paras 1, 12, 16, 25, 54)
(B) Tort of False Imprisonment - Elements required to establish false imprisonment include proof of imprisonment and absence of lawful authority - Court of Appeal clarified that a successful habeas corpus does not automatically equate to a claim for false imprisonment, emphasizing the need for separate proof of unlawful detention. (Paras 42, 48)
(C) Judicial Authority - A police officer executing a remand order cannot be liable for false imprisonment if acting under a judicial order, even if the order is later found to be erroneous. (Paras 26, 52)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant was arrested under POCA and detained unlawfully for 16 days. The High Court initially ruled in favor of the Appellant, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, citing procedural errors and the need for lawful authority in detention.
Findings of Court:
The Court of Appeal found that the High Court erred in its application of the law regarding false imprisonment and habeas corpus, emphasizing the need for separate claims and the role of judicial authority in detention.
Issues: The main issues included the relationship between habeas corpus proceedings and false imprisonment claims, and whether the detention was lawful under the Federal Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that a successful habeas corpus does not automatically imply false imprisonment; the burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish unlawful detention.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Appellant had commenced an action for false imprisonment against the Respondents. The High Court , after full trial, had entered judgment in favour of the Appellant. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, that decision was reversed and the judgment set aside. This appeal is in respect of that decision of the Court of Appeal.
[2] The Federal Court had on 20 February 2024 granted leave to the Appellant on the following question of law:
"Where an order issuing the writ of Habeas Corpus is made in relation to the remand of a person, is it a necessary implication of such order that the detention was not effected in accordance with law under art 5(2) of the Federal Constitution and was thus unlawful for contravening art 5(1) of the and amounting to false imprisonment."
Background Facts
(i) Appellant's arrest and detention
[3] On 10 July 2016, the 1st Respondent arrested the Appellant under s 3 of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (" POCA ").
[4] On 11 July 2016, the 1st Respondent applied for a remand order under s 4(1) of POCA to the Magistrates Court . A remand order for a period of 21 days, ie 11 July 2016 to 31 July 2016, and a detention warrant dated 11 July 2016 were issued by the Magistrates Court . The said warrant dated 11 July 2016 states as below:
"Kepada Pegawai yang menjaga Penjara di Police Remand Centre dalam Jalan Ipoh, KL
...
Bahawasanya Sri Sanjeevan A/L Ramakrishnan K/P 841009-05-5689 (kemudian daripada ini disebut orang yang dituduh) telah dibawa pada hari ini ke hadapan Mahkamah ini dipertuduh melakukan kesalahan s 4(1)(a) APJ dan adalah perlu ditahan orang yang dituduh itu. Ini adalah memberi kuasa dan menghendaki kamu pegawai yang tersebut menerima orang yang dituduh ini ke dalam jagaan kamu bersama waran ini dan mempenjarakannya dengan selamat dalam Penjara sehingga haribulan 31 Jul 2016 apabila kamu akan menyebabkannya supaya dibawa ke hadapan Mahkamah tersebut pada pukul (blank) pagi hari yang tersebut melainkan jika kamu diperintahkan selainnya buat sementara itu."
(ii) Writ of Habeas Corpus
[5] On 15 July 2016, whilst in detention, the Appellant filed an application at the High Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent were named as the respondents in the said application.
[6] On 26 July 2015, upon hearing the said application, the High Court in summary found as below:
(i) Section 4 (1)(a) of POCA states that a magistrate is to "...remand the person in police custody for a period of twenty one days...". By using the phrases "Kepada Pegawai Yang Menjaga Penjara..." and "... dan mempenjarakannya dengan selamat dalam Penjara", the detention warrant dated 11 July 2016 clearly contradicted the wording used in s 4(1)(a) of ;
(ii) The detention warrant dated 11 July 2016 was issued to detain the Appellant at the "Police Remand Centre, Jalan Ipoh, KL". However, the Police Remand Centre, Jalan Ipoh, KL was not a gazetted detention centre. The Federal Counsel also failed to prove that the Police Remand Centre, Jalan Ipoh, KL stated in the detention warrant and the gazetted detention centre ie "Lokap di Pusat Tahanan Polis Mukim Batu, Kuala Lumpur" as per Government Gazette PU(B) 126/2016 referred to the same place; and
(iii) The detention warrant dated 11 July 2016 stated that the Appellant "dipertuduh melakukan kesalahan s 4(1)(a) APJ dan adalah perlu ditahan orang yang dituduh itu... dan mempenjarakannya...". However, the Appellant was arrested under s 3(1) of POCA for further investigation and no charges were levied against him. As such, the said warrant was confusing and prejudicial to the Appellant.
[7] Based on the grounds above, the High Court was satisfied that the detention of the Appellant through the detention warrant dated 11 July 2016 had contradicted the mandatory procedural requirement under s 4(1)(a) of the POCA , which rendered the Appellant's detention unlawful and void. The High Court , therefore, allowed t
