Back
2023 MarsdenLR 1324
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH
PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. SATHIVEL SUBRAMANIAM & YANG LAIN
[Permohonan Jenayah No: CB-43(A)-1-05/2023]
The judgment establishes that remand orders must strictly adhere to prescribed legal procedures to safeguard individual rights.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: This judgment examines the legality of a remand order under Section 49 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, which governs arrest procedures. Facts: Six police members were remanded for investigation under the Act, with findings regarding the authority and procedures in detaining suspects.
Findings of Court:
The court determines that the remand order was improper as procedures were not duly followed.
Issues: The court questions whether the remand application adhered to legal standards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlights that the absence of valid procedural compliance invalidates the remand order.
Result: The remand order dated 6 May 2023 is quashed.
The grounds of appeal are primarily based on procedural irregularities concerning the issuance of the remand order. The appellant contends that the order was made without adhering to the statutory requirements governing detention procedures, thereby rendering it unlawful (!) .
Specifically, the appellant asserts that the remand order was issued without proper application or approval by a competent judicial authority, violating the procedural safeguards mandated by the relevant legislation (!) . The appellant further argues that the detention was carried out in breach of the requirement to bring the suspect before a magistrate within the prescribed timeframe, thus infringing upon the constitutional right to a lawful detention (!) .
Additionally, it is contended that the law enforcement officers failed to observe the necessary procedural steps for applying for remand, including the absence of a valid and justified basis for continued detention, which is a prerequisite under the statutory framework (!) .
The appellant also highlights that the failure to comply with procedural requirements undermines the legality of the detention, and by extension, the validity of the remand order itself (!) .
In light of these procedural deficiencies, the appellant submits that the remand order should be quashed, as it was issued in breach of the statutory safeguards designed to protect individual rights and ensure lawful detention (!) .
The appeal emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to procedural law in detention matters, particularly in investigations involving serious offences, to uphold constitutional principles and maintain the integrity of the legal process (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstances leading to the remand application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. legal grounds for detention compliance. (Para 6) |
| 3. legality of the remand process. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. legislative authority relating to arrests. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's reflection on procedural law. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. purpose of statutory provisions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. interpretation of statutory language. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. consideration of legislative history. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. general provisions vs. specific enactments. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. contextual interpretation of legal texts. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 11. authority of law in arrest procedures. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 12. final analysis of the appropriateness of remand. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 13. conclusions on remand legitimacy. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
[1] Pada 7 Mei 2023, saya telah terbaca satu berita di dalam Akhbar Kosmo Online yang melaporkan bahawa Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) telah menahan lima orang anggota dan seorang pegawai polis berpangkat Inspektor kerana disyaki menerima rasuah bernilai RM5,000.00.
[2] Akhbar tersebut juga melaporkan bahawa Pendaftar Mahkamah Temerloh telah memerintahkan tahanan reman selama 6 hari ke atas kesemua suspek. Kes tersebut disiasat di bawah s 16(a)(A) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 (Akta SPRM). Saya berpendapat adalah perlu dan bertanggungjawab untuk melakukan semakan kepada perintah tahanan reman tersebut bagi melihat sama ada ianya adalah teratur seperti yang diperuntukkan di bawah s 323 KPJ seperti berikut:
"323. Powers to call for records of subordinate Courts
(1) A Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any subordinate Criminal Court for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of that subordinate Court."
(2) Orders made under ss 97 and 98 are not proceedings within the meaning of this section."
[3] Dalam hal ini, saya telah meneliti minit permohonan reman bertarikh 6 Mei 2023 serta catatan yang dibuat oleh Penolong Kanan Pendaftar semasa prosiding tersebut. Penelitian kepada nota prosiding tersebut menunjukkan bahawa pada prosiding tersebut, pegawai penyiasat telah dicatatkan hadir dengan kehadiran enam Orang Yang Disiasat (OYDS) yang diwakili oleh peguam dari Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan (YBGK). Ia adalah untuk permohonan reman bagi kesalahan di bawah s 16(a)(A) Akta SPRM 2009.
[4] Alasan permohonan adalah seperti yang terdapat di para (e) (1) hingga (9) yang dilihat sebagai di Lampiran A helaian nombor 1 dalam minit permohonan reman seperti berikut:
1) Mengesan bahan bukti penting berkaitan kes ini yang dipercayai masih dalam simpanan suspek-suspek.
2) Mengesan saksi utama dan beberapa individu penting yang dipercayai berkaitan dengan siasatan kes ini.
3) Melakukan penggeledahan di beberapa lokasi di sekitar daerah Jerantut dan pengecaman terhadap suspek juga perlu dilakukan.
4) Terdapat dokumen-dokumen penting berkaitan siasatan yang perlu dikaji dan dirujuk kepada suspek.
5) Mengelakkan berlakunya kacau ganggu saksi-saksi lain jika suspek dibebaskan dan pencarian barang kes masih lagi dilakukan.
6) Mengelakkan suspek mengganggu, mempengaruhi dan mengancam saksi-saksi yang terlibat semasa proses penyiasatan jika suspek dibebaskan terlalu awal.
7) Merakam pernyataan saksi-saksi yang terlibat yang boleh membantu siasatan.
8) Menjalankan pemeriksaan awal dan merakam percakapan suspek di bawah s 53(3) Akta SPRM 2009.
9) Sekiranya suspek dilepaskan pada peringkat ini, sudah tentu siasatan kes ini akan terjejas dan bimbang suspek akan menghapuskan bukti-bukti penting yang boleh membantu siasatan.
[5] Di dalam catatan nota prosiding juga telah didapati bahawa peguam OYDS telah menyatakan seperti berikut semasa prosiding reman:
Kesemua OYDS ini hadir sendiri kepada Pejabat SPRM.
Kesemua OYDS adalah an
