FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
PETER CHANG NYUK MING – Appellant
Versus
TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. detention order and its implications. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against validity of detention. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's view on habeas corpus applicability. (Para 6 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. suspension of detention order explained. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal standards for habeas corpus. (Para 14 , 15 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. interpretation of constitutional rights. (Para 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. stare decisis and its importance. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. final order for habeas corpus. (Para 27) |
[1] The appellant filed for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The application was dismissed by the learned Judge who agreed with the preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Federal Counsel [SFC]; that such writ does not lie where the corpus is not or is no longer in physical detention. We disagree and these are our reasons.
Some Material Facts
[2] Pursuant to a detention order dated 30 August 2021 issued under the hand of the 1st respondent, the appellant was detained at Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak, Simpang Rengam, Johor for a period of two years. He is alleged to have been involved in activities related to trafficking of dangerous drugs as defined under s 2 of the Dangerous Dr
Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v. Nasharuddin Nasir
Sejahratul Dursina v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors
Sureshwaran Rajoo v. Ketua Polis Negara & 3 Lagi
Iki Putra Mubarak v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor
Letitia Bosman v. PP & Other Appeals (No 1)
Selva Vinayagam Sures v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors
Zaidi Kanapiah v. ASP Khairul Fairoz Rodzuan & Other Cases
Lei Meng v. Inspektor Wayandiana Abdullah & Ors
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.