Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2144
HIGH COURT MALAYA SEREMBAN
AZIZUL AZMI ADNAN, J
ANANTHAGOPI ALAGUGANESAN – Appellant
Versus
MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: NA-21NCVC-16-12-2020]
The court ruled that the plaintiff's arrest was unlawful due to failure to inform him of the grounds for arrest, violating his constitutional rights, resulting in awarded damages.
Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Article 5(1) and 5(3) - Immigration Act 1959/63 - Sections 6(1)(c) and 51(5)(b) - Plaintiff unlawfully detained by police - Court found that the plaintiff was not informed of the grounds for arrest and was denied opportunity to produce identification documents - Arrest deemed unlawful due to ignorance of law and failure to comply with constitutional protections - Damages awarded for unlawful detention. (Paras 42-76)
(B) Misfeasance in Public Office - Plaintiff's claim not established as malice or bad faith by the officer was not proven - Vicarious liability established against the Government for actions of the police officer. (Paras 83-89)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff was arrested without being informed of the grounds for his arrest while stranded in Malaysia due to COVID-19 lockdowns, despite having valid travel documents. (Paras 3-36)
Findings of Court:
The court found the arrest unlawful, emphasizing the need for police to adhere to legal standards when exercising their powers. (Paras 76-76)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the arrest and whether the plaintiff's rights under the Federal Constitution were violated. (Paras 37-38)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that failure to inform the plaintiff of the grounds for arrest constituted a violation of his constitutional rights, rendering the arrest unlawful. (Paras 76-76)
Result: The plaintiff awarded RM180,000 as general damages for unlawful detention, RM45,000 as exemplary damages, and costs. (Para 39)
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff in this case, Mr Ananthagopi Alaguganesan, is an Indian national. He claimed he was unlawfully detained by the 5th defendant, Inspector Jeinthan Annanthakirishnan, an investigating officer with the Royal Malaysian Police.
[2] After a full trial of the action, I allowed the plaintiff's claim in part. The reasons for my decision are set out here.
Material Facts
[3] The plaintiff arrived in Malaysia on 7 March 2020, just before the country went into lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He had a flight ticket to return to India on 23 March 2020. The plaintiff had obtained a social visit pass, which was to expire on 13 August 2020.
[4] As events turned out, the plaintiff became stranded in Malaysia due to the imposition of movement control orders that were intended to curb the spread of the coronavirus.
[5] It was common ground between the parties that on 19 March 2020, the Director General of the Department of Immigration issued a document entitled Exemption of Special Pass during Movement Control Order (MCO). The material portion of this circular read as follows:
Reference is made to the current Movement Control Order (MCO) declared in Malaysia recently,
2. In view of the current situation, all foreigners in Malaysia whose pass expired DURING THIS (MCO) PERIOD ONLY, may leave Malaysia without any Special Pass provided they possess a valid Passport. This is effective today until further notice.
[6] The effect of this letter was that all foreigners who became stranded in Malaysia due to the imposition of movement control orders could lawfully remain in Malaysia even though the validity period of their immigration passes may have expired.
The Arrest Of The Plaintiff
[7] On 10 October 2020 at about 11.55pm, while the plaintiff was in his friend's house in Port Dickson, he was arrested by Inspector Jeinthan (the 5th defendant) in connection with the alleged misappropriation and sale of a statue of a deity from the Sri Balathandayuthapani temple in Rantau. Four police officers were present, all in plain clothes. They were Corporal Saupi bin Said, Inspector Jeintan, Inspector Roheswaran (DW1) and Corporal Adi. Corporal Saupi was present when Inspector Jeinthan effected the arrest of the plaintiff. The other two officers were not, because they were guarding the rear entrance of the house. Of the four officers, only Inspector Jeinthan and Inspector Roheswaran testified at trial.
[8] The facts thus far narrated were not in material dispute. However, the witnesses for the plaintiff and those for the defence put forth markedly contrasting versions of the events regarding the precise circumstances of the plaintiff's arrest.
[9] The plaintiff testified that he had been dragged by a group of men from the house into a waiting car. His testimony at trial was that it was only in the car that he was informed by one of the men of Indian descent that they were police officers. The plaintiff further testified that they did not ask for his passport or personal details to verify his identity. According to the plaintiff, he was only told of the reasons for his arrest when he was in the car. He was then brought to the Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri Sembilan in Seremban.
[10] The owner of the house where the plaintiff was arrested was Mr Mahendran Vellasamy (PW1), who was an oil and gas technician. His testimony at trial corroborated that of the plaintiff, which was that the police had not asked for the plaintiff's identification documents at the time they dragged him out of the house.
[11] Mr Mahendran testified that one of the men had asked the plaintiff whether he was Gobi and then dragged him out. According to Mr Mahendran, none of the men provided identification or even identified themselves as the police.
[12] Mr Mahendran testified that the plaintiff's passport was in a sling bag beside the chair on which the plaintiff was sitting at the material time. His testimony in this regard was not challenged i
