Suriyadi Halim Omar J:

On 8 November 2000 I heard this habeas corpus application, and eventually allowed it with costs. The background of this case was that the applicant had been detained under the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Act 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), pursuant to an order pronounced by the learned magistrate of Bachok, Kelantan on 13 September 2000. The applicant complained that that order, pursuant to s. 6(1)(b) of the Act was flawed and thus void. He alleged that the flaw came in the form of the non-specification by the learned magistrate of the relevant party that was supposed to supervise him after his release from detention at the Tampoi Rehabilitation Centre. By this failure his interest had been compromised and thus had prejudiced his person.

Interestingly enough, the complaint was only confined to the supervision matter per se, as the applicant never complained of the detention sanction. The legal poser that also attracted my attention was whether an order of habeas corpus could be granted in the circumstances of