Key Points: - Deputy Minister issued a two-year detention order against the detainee on 13 October 2006 under s. 4(1) of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969; first habeas corpus application filed in High Court Kuala Lumpur was dismissed on 18 October 2007 without appeal (!) . - Detainee filed a second habeas corpus application on 6 November 2007 in High Court Shah Alam challenging the same detention order; respondents raised preliminary objection based on res judicata and abuse of process (!) . - First application challenged lack of evidential basis for detention and personal hardships; second application alleged procedural non-compliances with the Ordinance, Rules, and Federal Constitution (!) (!) . - Res judicata defined per Black's Dictionary includes preclusion of matters that could have been raised in prior suit; three elements met: prior judicial decision, final judgment on merits, same parties (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Doctrine of res judicata applies to criminal proceedings and habeas corpus via s. 25(2) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and inherent jurisdiction; supported by cases like Superintendent of Pudu Prison v. Sim Kie Chon and Privy Council authorities (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Wider res judicata precludes relitigating matters that could and should have been raised earlier, unless special circumstances exist (!) (!) (!) (!) . - First application doomed to fail post-1989 amendments limiting challenges to procedural non-compliance only (Lee Kew Sang); detainee's solicitors failed to raise viable procedural grounds, not detainee's fault (!) (!) . - Special circumstances (erroneous legal advice by first solicitors, liberty at stake) preclude res judicata and abuse of process; second application allowed to proceed (!) (!) (!) . - Preliminary objection dismissed (!) .

What is res judicata? [p_6][p_7]

Is the principle of res judicata applicable to criminal matters and habeas corpus applications? [p_25][p_26]