Back
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
GOH LEONG YONG – Appellant
Versus
ASP KHAIRUL FAIROZ RODZUAN & ORS – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: 05(HC)-158-11-2020(W)]
Ringkasan dokumen ini menyatakan bahawa permohonan writ of habeas corpus terhadap penahanan individu adalah tidak relevan apabila penahanan tersebut sudah berakhir atau digantikan oleh perintah penahanan yang terkini. Mahkamah menegaskan bahawa writ harus ditujukan kepada perintah penahanan yang sedang berkuatkuasa dan tidak boleh merujuk kepada perintah terdahulu yang telah tamat tempoh (!) (!) .
Dokumen ini juga menegaskan bahawa prosedur dan syarat-syarat tertentu mesti dipatuhi dalam penahanan di bawah undang-undang tertentu, dan jika tiada pelanggaran prosedur, penahanan dianggap sah (!) (!) . Mahkamah menolak hujah bahawa undang-undang tertentu adalah tidak sah atau tidak konstitusional, dan menyatakan bahawa peruntukan-peruntukan tersebut selaras dengan kuasa legislatif dan perlembagaan negara (!) (!) .
Selain itu, dokumen ini membincangkan bahawa kuasa mahkamah untuk mengisytiharkan penahanan sebagai tidak sah bergantung kepada sama ada penahanan itu masih berkuatkuasa dan memenuhi syarat-syarat tertentu (!) (!) . Ia juga menegaskan bahawa sebarang pelanggaran prosedur yang tidak bersifat mandatori tidak akan membatalkan penahanan, dan bahawa penahanan yang dilakukan secara prosedur yang betul adalah sah (!) (!) .
Akhir sekali, dokumen ini menegaskan bahawa kuasa badan legislatif untuk menetapkan tempoh reman dan prosedur tertentu adalah sah dan tidak melanggar prinsip pemisahan kuasa, serta bahawa peruntukan-peruntukan tersebut adalah sebahagian daripada kuasa yang sah di bawah perlembagaan (!) (!) .
Background
[1] The appeal herein is against the decision of the High Court which had dismissed the application by Goh Leong Yong (the appellant) for the writ of habeas corpus against the detention of the appellant under s 4(1)(a) of Preventive of Crime Act 1959 (POCA).
[2] The appellant was arrested by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) on 2 October 2020. He was held under remand from 3 October 2020 until 11 October 2020. He was released on MACC bail on 11 October 2020.
[3] On 27 October 2020, the appellant was arrested by the police in relation to Cheras Report: 027048-27049/19 for an alleged offence under s 4(1)(c) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 (CGHA). He was under remand from 27 October 2020 until 29 October 2020.
[4] On 29 October 2020, the appellant was arrested under another report for the same alleged offence under s 4(1)(c) of the CGHA, by the investigating officer (IO), Inspector Faizal bin Anuar.
[5] On 30 October 2020. the appellant was arrested under s 3(1) of POCA by the 1st respondent. On 31 October 2020, the 2nd respondent ordered the appellant to be remanded for 21 days from 31 October 2020 until 20 November 2020 under s 4(1)(a) of POCA. The remand order dated 31 October 2020 under s 4(1)(a) of POCA was ordered by the 2nd respondent based on 2019 Cheras report.
At The High Court
[6] The appellant filed for writ of habeas corpus on 3 November 2020. At that point in time, the appellant was detained under s 4(1)(a). The return date as can be seen on the Notice of Motion in the High Court was on 9 November 2020.
[7] The habeas corpus application was fixed for hearing on 16 November 2020. However, on 13 November 2020, before the expiry of 21 days' remand order (20 November 2020), the 1st and 3rd respondents appeared before the 2nd respondent and obtained an order for the appellant to be remanded for a further 38 days from 13 November 2020 under s 4(2)(a) of POCA.
[8] When the application for habeas corpus came up for hearing on 16 November 2020, counsel for the respondents took a preliminary objection on the ground that the application for the writ of habeas corpus against the detention under s 4(1)(a) had been rendered academic by reason of 38 days remand order under s 4(2)(a) granted by the Magistrate. The High Court in upholding the preliminary objection, dismissed the application on the same day based on the following reasons:
(i) The application for the writ of habeas corpus against the detention under s 4(1)(a) dated 31 October 2020, has been rendered academic by reason of the order by the 2nd respondent under s 4(2)(a) dated 13 November 2020, and hence the detention order under s 4(1)(a) is no longer a live issue;
(ii) The order by the 2nd respondent on 13 November 2020 for the appellant to be remanded under s 4(2)(a), effectively ended the earlier order dated 31 October 2020. Based on this sequent of events, the Court was of the opinion that the challenge by the appellant against the detention order dated 31 October 2020 under s 4(1)(a) was no longer relevant and had become academic;
(iii) Based on the authorities of, inter alia, the case of Ahmad Saidi Md Isa v. Timbalan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors, 2006 MarsdenLR 1201 , the High Court held that the subject matter of the appeal was the validity of the first detention under s 4(1)(a) which had lapsed by the time the 2nd detention order issued against the detenu under s 4(2)(a). As the detention order under s 4(1)(a) has ended, there was no longer a valid lis before the Court for adjudication. Any views which the Court may express about the validity or otherwise of the said order under s 4(1)(a) would be wholly academic, given the current order then, was under s 4(2)(a).
(iv) Reliance on the ratio in the case of L Rajanderan R Letchumanan v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors; [2018] MLJ (Supp) 393, [2010] 7 CLJ 653, where the Federal Court said:
"The cases referred to above illust
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
