SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 MarsdenLR 1685

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
KHAIRUDDIN ABU HASSAN – Appellant
Versus
WAN AEIDIL WAN ABDULLAH & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-21NCvC-34-05/2018]



Petitioner Advocates:Mohamed Haniff Khatri,Nasbal Harun ,Respondent Advocate: Andi Razalijaya A Dadi,Mohd Ashraf Abd Hamid

Police officers must have reasonable and credible grounds to justify an arrest; failure to do so results in unlawful detention.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code – Section 23(1)(a), Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 – Plaintiff's action for unlawful detention and malicious prosecution against police officers and prosecutors – Claim for unlawful detention allowed; malicious prosecution claim dismissed – Critical analysis of arrests made under various sections of the Penal Code shows lack of reasonable suspicion or credible information justifying detention – Second arrest also found unlawful with respect to inadequate justification – Evidence showed defendants failed to provide sufficient rationale for actions taken. (Paras 17, 36, 43, 56)

(B) Burden of proof – It lies on the party asserting facts in court – Plaintiff has proven his case for unlawful detention but failed for malicious prosecution due to lack of evidence of malice. (Paras 17, 74, 85)

(C) Damages – General damages awarded for unlawful detention; no award for malicious prosecution or exemplary damages due to absence of oppression or malicious intent. (Paras 96-97, 109)

Facts of the case: The plaintiff, a politician, lodged a police report regarding 1MDB and was subsequently arrested multiple times, the first without reasonable suspicion and the second under legislation previously deemed inapplicable. Arrests occurred following circumstantial reports that lacked concrete evidence against him, leading to his claims against multiple defendants including police and prosecutors. (Paras 11-15, 55)

Findings of Court: Unlawful detention confirmed for the initial arrest lasting six days; second arrest deemed unlawful under SOSMA due to improper application of the law. Malicious prosecution claim failed due to insufficient proof of malice. (Paras 56, 71, 85)

Issues: The key issues revolved around whether proper grounds existed for both arrests and the broader implications of the conduct of public officers in these actions. (Paras 17, 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that lawful arrest necessitates credible suspicion; the defendants failed to provide evidence justifying the plaintiff's arrests. Further, the plaintiff's allegation of malice in prosecution lacked sufficient foundation. (Paras 56, 85)

Result: Claim for unlawful detention allowed with damages of RM300,000; claim for malicious prosecution dismissed. (Paras 131)

JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff's action against the defendants is for unlawful detention and malicious prosecution. After a full trial, I allowed the plaintiff's claim for unlawful detention but dismissed his claim for malicious prosecution. Here are the grounds of my judgment.

Trial

[2] The witnesses who testified at the trial were:

The Defendants

[3] The 1st defendant was a senior police officer with the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) at the material time. He served as an Investigating Officer in the Criminal Investigation Unit, Criminal Investigation Department, Royal Malaysian Police Headquarters, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur.

[4] The 2nd defendant was a senior police officer with the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) at the material time. He served as an Investigating Officer at the Criminal Investigation Unit, Criminal Investigation Department, Royal Malaysian Police Headquarters, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur.

[5] The 3rd defendant was a police officer with the rank of Police Superintendent at the material time. He served as the Deputy Chief at the Dang Wangi District Police Headquarters, Jalan Dang Wangi, Kuala Lumpur.

[6] The 4th defendant was the Inspector General of Police at the material time. He was the person responsible for the actions of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants.

[7] The 5th defendant was a Deputy Public Prosecutor at the material time. He was the person responsible for conducting the prosecution against the plaintiff at the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate Court and High Court.

[8] The 6th defendant was a Deputy Public Prosecutor at the material time. He was the person responsible for conducting the prosecution against the plaintiff at the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.

[9] The 7th defendant was the Attorney General of Malaysia at the material time. He was the person responsible for the actions of the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants.

[10] The 8th defendant is the Government of Malaysia. It was the employer of all the other defendants at the material time.

Background Facts

[11] The plaintiff is a politician who was vocal in speaking out about the 1MDB issue. He lodged a police report on 12 December 2014 requesting the police to investigate on the affairs of 1MDB ("Plaintiff's Police Report"). An excerpt of the plaintiff's police report reads:

"Setelah membaca, meneliti dan mengkaji pelbagai laporan-laporan atau pendedahan mengenai kepincangan pentadbiran kewangan syarikat 1MDB melalui artikel-artikel yang ditulis di dalam akhbar-akhbar tempatan, luar negara serta blog-blog telah membuktikan secara jelas berbagai kelemahan di dalam system meminjam dana mahupun cara perbelanjaan dana yang amat meragukan khususnya membabitkan wang rakyat.

Oleh yang demikian, saya secara sukarela ingin membuat laporan rasmi memohon Polis DiRaja Malaysia untuk menyiasat secara mendalam dan menyeluruh terhadap kakitangan pentadbiran, para pegawai, Ahli-ahli Lembaga Pengarah serta juga keseluruhan personaliti ataupun mana-mana syarikat yang terbabit dengan urus-niaga meragukan dengan 1MDB.

Polis DiRaja Malaysia mestilah menyiasat secara telus, adil dan saksama demi untuk memelihara integrity agar sejumlah wang rakyat yang besar tidak diselewengkan atau tidak disalah urus."

[12] The plaintiff viewed that no action was taken on his police report. He subsequently made trips to several foreign countries to meet with the enforcement agencies there. Namely France, Switzerland, England, Hong Kong and Singapore. He lodged reports in those countries hoping that the authorities there would investigate the matter, since the 1MDB issue involved entities and institutions in those countries.

[13] The plaintiff's action was reported by the media. A complainant by the name of Mohammad Faisal bin Abu Shuaib Khan, who had read the media report about the plaintiff's trips abroad, lodged a police report on 18 September 2015 at 9:45am ("Complainant's Police Report").

[14] On the afternoon of that same day, ie 18 September 2015,


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top