Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2454
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SRI SANJEEVAN RAMAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
ASP POONNAM E KELING & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 01(f)-4-02-2024(W)]
The existence of a lawful judicial order negates claims of false imprisonment, and success in habeas corpus proceedings does not equate to an automatic finding of liability in civil tort actions.
Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Article 5(1) and 5(2) - Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Section 3 and Section 4(1)(a) - False imprisonment claim by detainee following unlawful detention under non-compliant remand warrant - Court of Appeal ruled remand lawful based on prospective overruling doctrine; previous unconstitutional findings not applicable retroactively. (Paras 20-26, 38-49).
(B) Legal distinctions between habeas corpus and false imprisonment claims - Mere issuance of habeas corpus does not equate to automatic liability for false imprisonment; evidence from habeas corpus must still meet burden of proof standards. (Paras 21-26, 48-52).
(C) Detainee cannot claim false imprisonment against detaining officer following judicial order; liability rests instead with the judicial authority that issued the order, even if it is found to be flawed. (Paras 26-27, 52).
Facts of the case:
The appellant was arrested under the POCA; following a successful habeas corpus application due to a non-compliant detention warrant, he sought damages for false imprisonment. The High Court had initially ruled in favor of the appellant, which was overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Court of Appeal found that the detention, though based on an erroneous warrant, was lawful due to the judicial order's existence, maintaining no false imprisonment claim against the arresting officer.
Issues: The applicable legal framework for claims of false imprisonment following habeas corpus proceedings and the relevance of judicial orders in determining lawful detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that successful habeas corpus does not automatically lead to liability for false imprisonment and held that the detaining officer acted under lawful authority, asserting that the existence of a judicial order negates false imprisonment claims.
Result: Appeal dismissed, upholding the Court of Appeal's judgment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. false imprisonment case started with habeas corpus application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. appellant claims false imprisonment and damages. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court of appeal sets aside high court's decision based on procedural errors. (Para 16 , 21 , 25) |
| 4. relationship between habeas corpus and false imprisonment clarified. (Para 30 , 33 , 37 , 39) |
Introduction
[1] The Appellant had commenced an action for false imprisonment against the Respondents. The High Court, after a full trial, had entered judgment in favour of the Appellant. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, that decision was reversed and the judgment set aside. This appeal is in respect of that decision of the Court of Appeal.
[2] The Federal Court had, on 20 February 2024, granted leave to the Appellant on the following question of law:
"Where an order issuing the writ of Habeas Corpus is made in relation to the remand of a person, is it a necessary implication of such order that the detention was not effected in accordance with law under art 5(2) of the Federal Constitution and was thus unlawful for contravening art 5(1) of the and amounting to false imprisonment."
Background Facts
(i) Appellant's Arrest And Detention
[3] On 10 July 2016, the 1st Respondent arrested the Appellant under s 3 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (" POCA ").
[4] On 11 July 2016, the 1st Respondent applied for a remand order under s 4(1) of the POCA to the Magistrates Court. A remand order for a period of 21 days, i.e., 11 July 2016 to 31 July 2016, and a detention warrant dated 11 July 2016 were issued by the Magistrates Court. The said warrant dated 11 July 2016 states as below:
"Kepada Pegawai yang menjaga Penjara di Police Remand Centre dalam Jalan Ipoh, KL
...
Bahawasanya Sri Sanjeevan A/L Ramakrishnan K/P 841009-05-5689 (kemudian daripada ini disebut orang yang dituduh) telah dibawa pada hari ini ke hadapan Mahkamah ini dipertuduh melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 4(1)(a) Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 dan adalah perlu ditahan orang yang dituduh itu. Ini adalah memberi kuasa dan menghendaki kamu pegawai yang tersebut menerima orang yang dituduh ini ke dalam jagaan kamu bersama waran ini dan mempenjarakannya dengan selamat dalam penjara sehingga 31 Jul 2016 apabila kamu akan menyebabkannya supaya dibawa ke hadapan Mahkamah tersebut pada pukul (blank) pagi hari yang tersebut melainkan jika kamu diperintahkan selainnya buat sementara itu."
(ii) Writ Of Habeas Corpus
[5] On 15 July 2016, whilst in detention, the Appellant filed an application at the High Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent were named as the respondents in the said application.
[6] On 26 July 2016, upon hearing the said application, the High Court in summary found as below:
(i) Section 4 (1)(a) of the POCA states that a Magistrate is to "... remand the person in police custody for a period of twenty one days...". By using the phrases "Kepada Pegawai Yang Menjaga Penjara..." and "... dan mempenjarakannya dengan selamat dalam Penjara", the detention warrant dated 11 July 2016 clearly contradicted the wording used in s 4(1)(a) of the ;
(ii) The detention warrant dated 11 July 2016 was issued to detain the Appellant at the "Police Remand Centre, Jalan Ipoh, KL". However, the Police Remand Centre, Jalan Ipoh, KL was not a gazetted detention centre. The Federal Counsel also failed to prove that the Police Remand Centre, Jalan Ipoh, KL stated in the detention warrant and the gazetted detention centre, i.e., "Lokap di Pusat Tahanan Polis Mukim Batu, Kuala Lumpur" as per Government Gazette PU(B) 126/2016 referred to the same place; and
(iii) The detention warrant dated 11 July 2016 stated that the Appellant "dipertuduh melakukan kesalahan s 4(1)(a) APJ dan adalah perlu ditahan orang yang dituduh itu... dan mempenjarakannya...". However, the Appellant was arrested under s 3(1) of the POCA for further investigation and no charges were levied agai
