Detention under the Dangerous Drugs Act does not require specification of timing of criminal activities if substantial grounds for detention exist.

Siti Norma Yaakob JCA:

On 9 August 1998, the appellant was arrested and detained by the Kelantan Narcotics Department under s. 3(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("the Act"). On 7 October 1998, the Deputy Minister for Home Affairs issued an order detaining the appellant for two years with effect from 7 October 1998 at the Rehabilitation Centre, Simpang Renggam, Johore managed by the third respondent, under s. 6(1) of the Act. The appellant was served with the detention order the same day and likewise the appellant's wife was notified of the same.

On 22 December 1998, the appellant applied by way of an originating summons, for a writ of habeas corpus under s. 365(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that his continued detention is illegal based principally on the ground that the relevant provisions of the Act relating to his detention had not been complied with and that there had been a long delay from the time the cause of his last act of detention was known to the time the detention order was issued. The High Court rejected both allegations and dismissed the appellant's originating summons.

In his petition, the appellant raised thirteen grounds of appeal but before us, his counsel, Dr. S. Balasekaran confined his arguments to three grounds which effectively relate to the failure of the Deputy Minister to indicate precisely under which provisions of s. 6(1) of the Act he was detained and the delay point.

The appellant affirmed two affidavits one in support of his application and the other in reply. The respondents also rely on two affidavits, one affirmed by Chief Inspector Mohamad bin Johari, the officer who conducted the investigations into the appellant's criminal activities and the other by the Deputy Minister himself.

The first objection taken by the appellant is the ambiguity apparent on the face of the detention order itself as to render it invalid. It is not disputed that the police had been investigating into the appellant's involvement in the trafficking of dangerous drugs between the period November 1997 to February 1998, six months before his arrest and detention. During that period he was alleged to have been trafficking in ganja in Batu Pahat, Johore, selling the dangerous drug at RM1,300 per kilogram from supplies obtained in Kelantan where it was purchased at RM900 per kilogram and during the period of his involvement he had in his possession a total of 47 kilograms of ganja for distribution. It must be emphasised here that the investigations that were carried out relate to the appellant's past criminal activities and this fact, the appellant contends must be clearly identified in the detention order itself.

At this point it is appropriate that we reproduce the penultimate part of the detention order that is being attacked.

Bahawasanya, selepas menimbangkan laporan lengkap penyiasatan dan laporan Pegawai Siasatan yang dikemukakan, saya adalah puashati bahawa orang yang tersebut di bawah ini pernah *ada/sedang ada kaitan dengan aktiviti yang berhubungan *dengan/yang melibatkan pengedaran dadah merbahaya;

At the foot of the order there is a directive to delete whatever is not relevant at the places where the star or asterisk appears in the following manner:

*potong dimana tidak berkenaan.

It is the appellant's contention that in failing to firstly cross out the true nature of the appellant's criminal activities as to indicate whether such activities were past or present and secondly to indicate his involvement or association in the trafficking of dangerous drugs, the appellant is left in doubt as to the true nature and reason of his detention. As such the detention order is vague and there is ambiguity on the face of it and this makes the detention order invalid.

Perhaps the answer to this lies in the particular section of the law under which the detention order was issu