Legality of detention orders under the Dangerous Drugs Act is upheld despite prior procedural irregularities unless statutory conditions precedent are breached.

[1] The appellant was detained under a detention order dated 9 April 2009 pursuant to s 6(1) Dangerous Drugs Act (Special Preventive Measures) 1985 (the Act) for drugs trafficking activities He applied to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus for his release. The High Court had on 19 February 2010 rejected his application. He now appeals to the Federal Court.

[2] The sole ground of appeal is the complaint of non compliance with s 3(2) (a) and (b) of the Act. It was submitted that since there are no affidavits filed by the respondent to rebut the challenge by the appellant of that non compliance to show that the arrest and detention in custody by the police was properly discharged by the designated officers under those subss, the subsequent detention order made by the Deputy Minister is therefore illegal.

[3] The learned senior federal counsel while admitting that there are no affidavits in reply submitted that this does not affect the legality of the detention order made by the Deputy Minister, relying on the authorities which we will now discuss.

[4] The legal issue for our determination in this appeal is neither new nor novel. It has been considered in the decisions of this Court in the cases of Mohd Faizal Haris v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors, 2005 MarsdenLR 2076 and Timbalan Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors v. Arasa Kumaran; [2006] 6 MLJ 689 ; [2006] 4 CLJ 847 . Learned counsel for the appellant conceded that if Mohd Faizal is good law then this appeal is groundless He however submitted that a different interpretation should be given to the non compliance that arose in this appeal. We say that we are not departing from that decision.

[5]In the former case the question that arose was whether the defects in the arrest of the detainee vitiated the subsequent detention order made by the Deputy Minister What the Federal Court held in that case may be so summarized. Firstly, an application for a writ of habeas corpus must be directed against the current detention order even when the earlier arrest had been irregular Secondly, any irregularity for non compliance with the procedures under s 3(2)(a), (b) and (c) is not a relevant matter for consideration when it has been superseded by the Deputy Minister's detention order made under s 6(1) of the Act. Thirdly, the pre-condition to the exercise of the Deputy Minister's power to order a detention is merely to consider the reports of investigation made by the police and the inquiry officer And lastly, there is no necessity to explain the sequence of events that transpired prior to the making of the detention order, and it follows that there is no necessity to file explanatory affidavits in relation to the prior arrest of the detainee.

[6]Arasa Kumaran concerns an executive detention order made by the Minister under the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (the POPOC). In that case the complaint made by the respondent was on the non-compliance by the police with the requirements of s 3(3)(a) and (b) of the POPOC ie, the irregularities in the prior arrest made by the police preceding the detention order The Federal Court held that the ratio decidendi of Mohd Faizal stating that any illegality in the prior arrest and detention cannot be the subject matter of inquiry and thus not relevant in any judicial review, is similarly applicable to a detention order under the POPOC. In Arasa Kumaran it was similarly held that there is no necessity for affidavits to be filed in relation to the prior arrest and detention.

[7] [2006] 2 MLRA 230 , [2006] 6 MLJ 403 involved a challenge on the omission of the inquiry of