Hishamudin Mohd Yunus J:

[1] In the present case, the plaintiff is claiming against the defendants for damages for the tort of false imprisonment as well as for the tort of assault and battery.

[2] At the material time the plaintiff was employed in various capacities in a number of companies. The first Defendant at the material time was a police officer with the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police attached to the Special Branch Department, Police Headquarters (IPK), Kuala Lumpur The second Defendant is the Inspector-General of Police. The claim against the third Defendant, that is the Federal Government, is for vicarious liability in respect of the torts of the first and second Defendants.

[3] Briefly, the plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully arrested without a warrant of arrest by a group of Special Branch officers led by the first Defendant at about 10 o'clock at night on 25 September 1998. The arrest occurred in front of his house, as he was returning home and after he had just alighted from a car driven by a friend. He was not clearly told by the first Defendant of the reason for the arrest. He was only vaguely told that he was arrested under the Internal Security Act. the plaintiff alleges that at the time of arrest he was handcuffed and given a hard slap thrice by the first Defendant when he was unable to show the first Defendant the location of his car After the arrest, the first Defendant and his men entered the plaintiff's house without a search warrant and seized several documents and items He was then blindfolded and taken to the ibu pejabat Polis Kontinjen ('the IPK'), Kuala Lumpur, where in a room at the first floor he was stripped naked, humiliated, and subjected to prolonged mental and physical torture by the first Defendant together with then Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Rahim Noor, and several other police personnel. The ordeal lasted until 4 in the morning. He was denied medical treatment for several days. Only on 29 September that he was taken to see a doctor, Dr Vasantha (SD7).

[4] It is the allegation of the plaintiff that he was taken to Bukit Aman the following day after the arrest (26 September 1998) and at Bukit Aman he was interrogated for 19 days. All in all he was in police custody for 57 days until his release on 21 November 1998.

[5] While in police custody he was denied access to counsel. He was also denied access to his family members. His family was allowed to see him only after he was kept in custody for 27 days, and throughout the entire 57 days under detention his family was allowed to see him only twice. Throughout these 57 days of detention he was kept under solitary confinement and, as said earlier, was interrogated for 19 days - interrogated not on matters affecting the security of the country but on political matters.

A. Whether The Arrest And Detention Of the plaintiff Were Lawful

[6] As I have ruled in Abdul Ghani Haroon v. Ketua Polis Negara & Another Application (No: 3), [2001] 6 MLJ 198, the cardinal principle is that every detention is, prima facie, unlawful and the burden of proof is on the detaining authority to justify the detention (see also R v. Home Secretary, ex parte Khawaja [1983] 2 WLR 321).

(a) the plaintiff was never properly informed by the first Defendant of the grounds of his arrest as required under art 5(3) of the Federal Constitution.

(b) The first Defendant failed to satisfy the court with sufficient particulars and material evidence of the plaintiff's activities to justify the arrest and detention of the plaintiff under s 73(1) of the Internal Security Act 1960.('the ISA').

(c) The arrest and detention of the plaintiff were mala fide.

[8]Article 5 of the Federal Constitution states:

5. Liberty of the person

(1) No person shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with the law.

...

(3) Where a person is arrested he shall be informe