An arrest without reasonable suspicion violates legal standards, leading to unlawful detention, which entitles affected parties to damages.

JUDGMENT

Mohd Sofian Abdul Razak JCA:

Introduction

[1] There are two appeals before this court emanating from the decisions of the High court dated 4 February 2019 and were heard together namely:

(a) Civil Appeal No: T-01(NCVC)(W)-108-03-2019 ("Appeal No 108"), the appellant is the 1st plaintiff in the High court and the respondents are the defendants. The appellant is appealing against part of the decision of the learned High court Judge ("the learned HCJ") on the quantum of damages; and

(b) Civil Appeal No: T-01(NCVC)(W)-748-12-2019 ("Appeal No 748"), the appellants are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the High court. The appellants are appealing against the whole decision of the learned HCJ in allowing the plaintiffs' claim for damages.

[2] For ease of reference, the parties will be referred to as they were in the proceedings before the High court.

[3] Having considered the appeal records and the submissions of the parties in these appeals, it is our unanimous decision that Appeal No 108 is allowed with costs and Appeal No 748 is dismissed with costs. We append herewith the reasons for our decision.

Background Facts

[4] Plaintiffs' claim is for wrongful detention. This whole case started when one Budi Hermawan ("Budi") an Indonesian national (Passport: A 1505468) employed by the 1st plaintiff with valid documentation had fled his house and lodged a police report complaining that he had been beaten and assaulted by the 2nd plaintiff on 6 April 2013.

[5] The 1st plaintiff who was worried that Budi had gone missing then called the police and was told that Budi was receiving treatment at a hospital. Subsequently, the police recorded the 1st plaintiff's statement on the night of 6 April 2013.

[6] On 7 April 2013, the 1st plaintiff was called again by the police instructing her to bring her other Indonesians employees. The 1st plaintiff brought three (3) of her employees and they were allowed to return after having their statements recorded.

[7] On 8 April 2013 at around 9.28 am., the 2nd defendant recorded Budi's statement. Her investigation revealed some material facts which formed the basis to initiate investigation under subsection 13(f) Anti Trafficking in Person and Smuggling of Migrants 2007 [Act 670]. The 2nd defendant suspected that Budi was a trafficked person. A police report was lodged to investigate Budi's complaints.

[8] Subsequent to that, the 2nd plaintiff, who is the younger brother of the 1st plaintiff, was arrested by a team of police officers at around 3.30pm on 8 April 2013 pursuant to a report lodged by Budi alleging that he had been hurt by the 2nd plaintiff. On the same day, the 1st plaintiff was arrested for human trafficking and remanded. After being detained for seven days, the 1st plaintiff was released on bail on 15 April 2013.

[9] The 2nd plaintiff was charged at the Magistrates' court at Kuala Terengganu for an offence under s 323 of the Penal Code. However, on 31 April 2015 the Magistrates' court granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) against the 2nd plaintiff. The plaintiffs alleging unlawful arrest and detention which had affected them mentally and physically brought this action and and claimed damages.

[10] Plaintiffs, in para 19 of the Statement of Claim prayed as in the following:

(a) Pampasan gantirugi ke atas tekanan mental dan fizikal, kehilangan pendapatan, reputasi terjejas, halangan dan kesusahan yang dialami pada kadar yang akan ditaksirkan;

(b) Pampasan gantirugi atas penangkapan dan penahanan yang salah dan tidak sah pada kadar yang akan ditaksirkan;

(c) Gantirugi teladan;

(d) Kos tindakan ini pada kadar peguamcara dan klien; and

(e) Lain-lain perintah dan relif yang difikirkan adil dan suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini.

[11] After a full trial, on 4 February 2019, the learned HCJ found that the detention was lawful. The court however allowed the 1st plaintiff's prayer for damages and had made an order against the defendants as follows:

(a) Defendan-defendan