1. Challenge to validity of preventive detention order under Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 for alleged drug trafficking. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 2158
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
AVINDER SINGH GILL, JC
PARTHIBAN SATHIMURUGAN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Application No: JA-44-16-03/2026]
In preventive detention, a thumbprint satisfies mandatory signature requirements for statements. The right to a fair hearing may be limited to protect national security and witnesses. Referencing a syndicate suffices to meet the jurisdictional requirement of involvement with a "substantial body of persons."
Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Articles 5, 149 and 151 - Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Sections 4(5), 6(1), 11C, 11D(c) and 14 - Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Rules 1987 - Rule 10(2) - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 365(1)(b) - Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging Detention Order - Lawfulness of detention - Whether statutory requirements for recording statements and procedural fairness were complied with.
(B) Recording of Statements - Section 4(5) of Act 316 - Where a mandatory provision requires a statement to be signed or affixed with a thumbprint, an unchallenged thumbprint constitutes valid endorsement and fulfills the legal requirement for the statement to be used in the investigation report. (Paras 22, 27)
(C) Right to be Heard and National Security - Rule 10(2) of the Rules 1987 - The right to be heard (audi alteram partem) may be limited in preventive detention proceedings where the authority exercises discretion to hear evidence ex parte or withhold documents to protect witness identities and national interest. Such exercises of discretion are valid if supported by statutory provisions and constitutional safeguards under Article 151(3). (Paras 34, 36, 48)
(D) Jurisdictional Facts - Article 149 of the Federal Constitution - The requirement that a person be involved with a "substantial body of persons" is a fundamental jurisdictional element. A reference to a syndicate and the nature of the activities conducted within that network satisfies this threshold requirement. (Paras 77, 82, 85) (E) Judicial Review and Ouster Clauses - Section 11C of Act 316 - Statutory provisions that limit judicial review to procedural non-compliance remain valid under the doctrine of stare decisis unless declared unconstitutional by the appellate courts. However, such provisions are construed narrowly when they impact personal liberty. (Paras 57, 66, 68)
Facts of the case:
An individual was issued a detention order for two years on suspicion of involvement in drug trafficking. The applicant challenged the validity of the order via a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the recorded statement used for the order was defective and unsigned, that the Advisory Board acted ultra vires by hearing evidence ex parte, and that the detaining authority failed to prove the existence of a "substantial body of persons" as required by law.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the recorded statement was valid due to the presence of an unchallenged thumbprint. The Advisory Board's use of ex parte proceedings was deemed a valid exercise of discretion to protect witness safety. Furthermore, the mention of a syndicate in the facts was sufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirement of association with a substantial body of persons. The court also held that the statutory limitation on judicial review to procedural issues remained in effect.
Issues: Whether the detention was unlawful due to a defective recorded statement; whether the Advisory Board breached the principle of natural justice by conducting ex parte hearings; and whether the detention order was ultra vires for failing to specify a "substantial body of persons."
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an unchallenged thumbprint satisfies the mandatory signature requirement for recorded statements. In preventive detention, the protection of national security and witnesses allows for the limited exclusion of the detainee from parts of the proceedings. Jurisdictionally, a reference to a syndicate satisfies the requirement of a "substantial body of persons" under the Constitution and Act 316.
Result: Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
- fundamental liberties
- separation of powers
- crime and sentencing
-
practice and procedure
- preventive detention procedure
- evidence
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Applicant argued defective recorded statement, denial of fair hearing before Advisory Board, and failure to prove 'substantial body of persons'. (Para 4 , 17 , 29 , 33 , 74 )
3. Unchallenged thumbprint cured signature discrepancy. Advisory Board could hold ex parte hearings. Requirement of 'substantial body of persons' was met. (Para 20 , 27 , 31 , 41 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 85 , 86 , 87 )
4. Preventive detention valid if procedural safeguards complied with and three ingredients (group involvement, drug trafficking, public order need) established. (Para 14 , 77 , 82 , 84 )
5. Application for writ of habeas corpus dismissed; applicant to remain in detention until expiry or release. (Para 88 , 90 )
6. Does a thumbprint on a recorded statement satisfy the mandatory signing requirement under Section 4(5) of Act 316?
Yes, Section 4(5) expressly allows signing or affixing thumbprint; an unchallenged thumbprint constitutes irrefutable evidence of compliance. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
7. Can the Advisory Board conduct ex parte hearings and withhold witness identities under Act 316?
Yes, Rule 10(2) of LLPK Rules 1987 and Article 151(3) of the Constitution permit ex parte proceedings to protect witnesses and national security. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 45 , 48 )
8. Must the detaining authority prove involvement of a 'substantial body of persons' for a valid detention order?
Yes, it is a fundamental jurisdictional element; failure to disclose material facts about the group's existence renders the order ultra vires. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 )
9. Is the ouster clause in Section 11C of Act 316 still valid after the Federal Court struck down a similar clause in POCA?
Yes, Section 11C remains valid under stare decisis as the Federal Court has not declared it unconstitutional, though its protective effect is diluted. (Para 56 , 57 , 63 , 66 , 67 , 68 )
10. Is redaction of witness details a feasible alternative to ex parte hearings in preventive detention proceedings?
No, redaction is insufficient where context (drug types, locations, timing) could enable the detainee to deduce witness identities. (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 )
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is an application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by the applicant, Parthiban a/l Sathimurugan, challenging the validity of the Detention Order dated 14 March 2025. The order was issued by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs under s 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("Act 316"), which ordered the applicant to be detained at the Simpang Renggam Moral Rehabilitation Centre ("PPA") for two years.
Background Facts
[2] The applicant was arrested on 27 January 2025 by the police from IPK Kedah on suspicion of being involved in dangerous drug trafficking activities. He was remanded for 47 days for investigation purposes before the Detention Order was issued.
[3] The detention was based on specific Allegations of Fact ("Pengataan-Pengataan Fakta") found in exh PS-1, encl 2 regarding drug trafficking activities. The applicant was alleged to have:
(a) Been involved in the trafficking of dangerous drugs, specifically Syabu, containing methamphetamine.
(b) Handled drug trafficking activities by being part of a syndicate selling drugs known as Syabu containing the dangerous drug methamphetamine in packets weighing approximately 0.50g at RM50.00 per packet.
(c) That as part of a large group, had conducted drug trafficking activities selling drugs known as Syabu containing the dangerous drug methamphetamine by obtaining supply of the drug Syabu approximately weighing between 100 g to 150 g and employed a crime partner [rakan sejanayah] to assist in safekeeping the drug Syabu belonging to the applicant in packets weighing between 100 g to 150 g and paying him RM500.00 upon completion of the task.
[4] In his written submissions, a critical part of the applicant's case was over the recording of his Statement [exh PS-2, encl 2] taken on 28 January 2025. The applicant contends in his submissions that:
(a) The statement is a defective document containing material gaps and factual contradictions.
(b) He was never given a fair opportunity to read the statement or make corrections before it was used to paint a "picture" for the Minister.
(c) There are significant signature discrepancies between this Statement and other official documents, leading to the argument that the "facts" used to reach the Minister's subjective satisfaction were unreliable and legally "void".
[5] Following the issuance of the Detention Order, the applicant made a representation to the Advisory Board, where the recommendation to continue the detention was approved by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ("YDPA") on 3 June 2025.
Legal Framework
[6] This court has jurisdiction under art 5(2) of the Federal Constitution and s 365(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate complaints of unlawful detention.
[7] A hearing was held before the Advisory Board, which, in the exercise of its powers under Act 316, was charged with the duty to consider the Detainee's representations and to provide a report to the YDPA. The Advisory Board's focus is to assess whether the allegations against a detainee are substantiated and whether continued detention is necessary.
[8] Although s 11C(1) of Act 316 limits judicial review to the issue of procedural non-compliance only, the Federal court in Lee Kew Sang v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors ; [2005] 2 MLJ 631; [2005] 3 CLJ 914; [2005] 4 AMR 724 held that the court is obliged to give effect to the procedural requirements prescribed by law.
[9] Any violation of the mandatory procedure will invalidate the Detention Order without having to prove prejudice. The respondent submitted that the court's primary function is to determine whether a specific procedural requirement exists in the law and whether the Board has complied with a procedure permitted by the rules; and that there can be no finding of "non-compliance" in the absence of such a requirement.
[10] The nature of the writ is succinctly explained in the judgment of Zawawi Salleh FCJ in Chua Kian Voon v. Menteri Dalam Neger
