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

2006 MarsdenLR 2755

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
KUMARAN SUPPIAH – Appellant
Versus
DATO NOH HJ OMAR & ANOR – Respondent


Judgment

Augustine Paul FCJ:

[1] The only issue for determination in this appeal is whether a detention order made under s 4(1) of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 ("the Ordinance") can be made to take effect on a date subsequent to the date on which it was made.

[2] The appellant was ordered to be detained for a period of two years with effect from 26 December 2004 pursuant to a detention order made under s 4(1) of the Ordinance on 17 December 2004. He filed a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court to secure his release. The application was refused and this appeal is by him.

[3] Before us learned counsel argued that the detention order is invalid as it has been made to take effect on a date subsequent to the date on which it was made. He said that it must be made to take effect from the date it was made. This, he said, is clear from the language of s 4(1) of the Ordinance which reads as follows:

If the Minister is satisfied that with a view to preventing any person from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order it is necessary that that person should be detained, or that it is necessary for the suppression of violence or the prevention of crim

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top