Back
2006 MarsdenLR 840
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
MUHAMMAD JAILANI KASIM – Appellant
Versus
TIMBALAN MENTERI KESELAMATAN DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA & ORS – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: 05-34-2006 (J)]
[1] In Mohd Faizal bin Haris v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors, [2006] 1 MLJ 309 this Court held that a writ of habeas corpus must be directed against the current detention order when it has been made subsequent to a prior arrest and detention. Thus any illegality in the prior arrest and detention cannot be the subject matter of inquiry. The critical issue that arose for determination in this appeal before us was whether such a result would also extend to any irregularities in the making of the current detention order In other words, does it mean that any statutory pre-condition to the making or leading to the making of the current detention order cannot be inquired into just as in the case of irregularities in the prior arrest and detention?
[2] the appellant was arrested on 15 June 2004 pursuant to s 3(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("the Act"). The Deputy Minister of Internal Security issued a detention order against the appellant on 13 August 2004 under s 6(1) of the Act. The writ of habeas corpus filed by the appellant on 11 March 2005 was dismissed by the High Court on 20 February 2006. This appeal is by the appellant. In order to appreciate the argument raised before us by both parties it is necessary to reproduce some parts of the affidavits filed by them. Paragraph 6 of the affidavit affirmed by the Deputy Minister of Internal Security on 17 August 2005 reads as follows:
Daripada laporan lengkap penyiasatan yang berkaitan dengan aktiviti Pemohon yang telah saya terima daripada CIF INSPEKTOR ISMAIL BIN AHMAD iaitu Pegawai Penyiasat Polis di bawah s 3(3) Akta tersebut pada 26 Julai 2004 mengenai tangkapan dan penahanan Pemohon dan juga laporan oleh ADNAN BIN YA'ACOB iaitu Pegawai Siasatan di bawah s 5(4) Akta tersebut pada 3 Ogos 2004, saya berpuas hati bahawa Pemohon pernah ada atau sedang ada kaitan dengan aktiviti pengedaran dadah berbahaya dan adalah perlu bagi ketenteraman awam supaya Pemohon ditahan.
In reply to this affidavit the appellant affirmed an affidavit-in-reply on 1 September 2005. Paragraph 5 of this affidavit reads as follows:
Saya merujuk kepada perenggan 6 Afidavit responden Pertama dan sesungguhnya percaya bahawa pegawai siasatan di bawah s 5(4) Akta tersebut tidak layak menjadi pegawai siasatan di bawah s 5 Akta tersebut. Selebihnya pegawai siasatan tersebut tidak melaksanakan segala kewajiban dan tanggungjawab di bawah s 5 Akta tersebut, maka lapuran pegawai siasatan tidak lengkap dan tidak teratur responden Pertama telah mendasarkan Perintah Tahanan di bawah s 6(1) di atas lapuran pegawai siasatan yang defektif.
[3] The submission advanced by learned counsel before us stems from s 5 of the Act. It reads as follows:
5. (1) There shall be appointed by the Minister in writing such number of Inquiry Officers as may be necessary for the purposes of this Act:
Provided that no police officer nor any person who is not legally qualified shall be appointed to be an Inquiry Officer.
(2) Upon receiving the report under subsection (3) of s 3, the Inquiry Officer shall inquire whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person has been or is associated with any activity relating to or involving the trafficking in dangerous drugs.
(3) An Inquiry Officer may, in his discretion, for the purpose of subsection (2):
(a) require the attendance before him of a person detained under s 3;
(b) procure and receive all such evidence, whether oral or in writing and whether the same be admissible or not under any written law for the time being in force relating to evidence or criminal procedure, which he may think necessary or desirable;
(c) summon and examine witnesses on oath or affirmation, and may for those purposes administer any oath or affirmation;
(d) require the production of any document or other thing in his opinion relevant to the case.
(4) An Inquiry Officer shall submit his report in writing to the Minister within such period as ma
