Detention and deportation of non-citizens must strictly comply with legal requirements, and errors in legal proceedings can invalidate orders impacting detainees' rights.

Rhodzariah Bujang FCJ:

[1] The appellant, a Bangladeshi was an employee of a company, RCM Cemerlang (M) Sdn Bhd ("the employer") who was given a temporary visit employment pass ("the pass") by the Immigration Department which was valid until 12 March 2021. He was arrested by the immigration authority on 5 September 2020 at 6.40 pm after being allegedly found working at a coffee shop whilst on leave, which act is an offence under reg 39(b) of the Immigration Regulations 1963 ("the Regulations"). The appellant was produced before a Magistrate who ordered his detention for 14 days under s 51(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1959/63 ("the Act") from 5 September 2020 until 18 September 2020 and this can be seen from the detention notice to that effect which was issued and signed by Amran bin Abd Aziz, Senior Deputy Assistant Director of Immigration, Immigration Department of Malaysia. On 15 September 2020, a compound for the offence was offered to the appellant which was accepted and his employer paid the compound fee of RM300.00 on his behalf. On that same day, that is 15 September 2020 he was detained under s 35 of the Act at the Immigration Depot Detention Center of Tanah Merah, Kelantan for 30 days. An administrative order was made by the Immigration Department's Head of Enforcement for action to be taken to deport the appellant. The employer's appeal against that decision was rejected by the Immigration Department's "Jawatankuasa Rayuan Imigresen Negeri" (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) on 22 September 2020 and his removal from Malaysia or deportation was ordered. On 1 October 2020, he was remanded for 14 days by the Sessions Court and on the expiry of that remand order, that is 14 October 2020 the appellant was further detained under s 34 of the Act to facilitate his deportation from Malaysia as per the order of removal made on the same date, 14 October 2020. However, prior to the said date, on 5 October 2020, the appellant had filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention order dated 15 September 2020 on the grounds, firstly, that it was void as he had paid the said compound and was not a prohibited person who should be so removed and secondly, that the deportation order was made without giving him the opportunity to appeal to the Ministry of Home Affairs (sued as the 3rd respondent in this appeal). Thus, when the matter came up for hearing before the learned High Court Judge, additional grounds for the issuance of the writ were canvassed, which are the validity of the notice of cancellation of the pass, the deportation order and detention order, all dated 14 October 2020. On 12 October 2020, the learned High Court Judge granted an interim stay of the deportation order until the disposal of the habeas corpus application and on 11 April 2021 that stay order was extended until the disposal of his appeal before this Court. The said extension was ordered after the learned High Court Judge ("HCJ") delivered his decision on 28 February 2021 to dismiss the appellant's application for the writ of habeas corpus.

Decision Of The Learned High Court Judge

[2] On the issue of whether the re-arrest of the appellant on 15 September 2020 when his pass was still valid, His Lordship held that since his pass was revoked during the detention ordered by the learned Sessions Court Judge, this case is distinguishable from Sajad Hussain Wani lwn. Ketua Pengarah Imigresen Malaysia & Satu Lagi, , because Sajad was never brought before any Magistrate for further detention, his offence was in respect of immoral acts against the teaching of Islam and not one under the Act like the appellant here. Secondly, the detention of the appellant from the date of his arrest until that ordered by the Sessions Court Judge on 1 October 2020 was lawful as art 5(4) of the Federal Constitution allows 14 days after arrest of non-citizen for his production before a Magistrate. His Lordship also found no merit on the allegation tha