The court upheld that delays in investigation do not invalidate lawful detention within statutory limits, emphasizing procedural compliance over prior irregularities.

Abdul Rahman Sebli FCJ:

The Detention Order

[1] A Detention Order dated 27 April 2020 was issued by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs ("the Deputy Minister") against the appellant under s 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("the Act"), ordering for the appellant to be detained at Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Batu Gajah, Perak for a period of two years with effect from the date of the detention order.

[2] The appellant applied to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus to be issued for his release vide Notice of Motion dated 27 July 2020 supported by his affidavit affirmed on 16 July 2020. The application was dismissed by the learned judge on 7 December 2020 on the ground that there was no procedural impropriety in the detention of the appellant to warrant the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.

[3] Before us, the appellant raised the following two issues:

(1) There was a delay of 36 days by the police Investigating Officer in submitting the complete investigation report ("the investigation report") under s 3(3) of the Act to the Inquiry Officer of the Home Affairs Ministry and to the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs and this had prejudiced the appellant;

(2) The appellant had been denied his right to a fair trial when the witnesses requested by the appellant were not brought before the Advisory Board, resulting in the evidence of these witnesses being not available during the appellant's representation hearing. According to the appellant this is contrary to s 12 and s 16 of the Act, r 102 of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Measures) (Advisory Board Procedure) Rules 1987 ("the Rules") as well as art 151, art 5 and art 8 of the Federal Constitution.

First Issue

[4] In her grounds of judgment, the learned trial judge dealt with the first issue in the following manner at paras [11] and [12]:

"[11] Alasan-alasan yang dikemukakan dalam afidavit Pegawai Penyiasat KDN di dalam afidavitnya boleh dikategorikan sebagai alasan-alasan yang memuaskan dan boleh diterima. Pegawai Penyiasat PDRM (Inspektor Yazid) juga di dalam afidavitnya memberi butiran secara terperinci antara waktu siasatan Pemohon dan penyediaan laporan kepada KDN (rujuk encl 9).

[12] Walaupun waktu penyediaan laporan mengambil masa untuk disediakan untuk pertimbangan TMDN yang akhirnya mengeluarkan perintah, waktu tersebut di dalam penahan remand yang sah (60 hari) yang sememangnya wujud untuk membolehkan siasatan yang telus dan menyeluruh."

[5] The appellant's contention was that the delay of 36 days by the Investigating Officer in submitting his investigation report to the Ministry's Inquiry Officer and to the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs under s 3(3) of the Act was unlawful as it was not done with "all convenient speed". The argument was that the delay had resulted in the delay by the Deputy Minister in issuing the detention order under s 6(1) of the Act.

[6] As to how the appellant came up with the 36-day delay, he measured it from the date he was detained under s 3(1) on 1 March 2020 to the date the Investigating Officer submitted his investigation report to the Inquiry Officer and to the Deputy Minister under s 3(3) on 6 April 2020.

[7] Among the appellant's complaints was that his cautioned statement was only recorded 10 days after his arrest and the statements of the witnesses were only recorded 17 days later. He said the statements should have been recorded before his arrest or at the very least immediately after his arrest. He did not however point out which provision of the Act provides for such procedure.

[8] The appellant drew support from the recent decision of this Court in Chua Kian Voon v. Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors, 2019 MarsdenLR 3021 where there was an alleged delay of 21 days by the Inquiry Officer in conducting the inquiry after receiving the investigation report from the Investigating Officer. It was pointed out that the delay of 36 days in the present case is "far more severe" than the delay of 21 days in Chua Kian