Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ:

[1] The appellant was detained at Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak, Simpang Renggam, Johor from 24 September 2003 under a detention order of the same date issued by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs Malaysia ("the Deputy Minister"), the first respondent, pursuant to s 4(1) of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 ("the Ordinance").

[2] He applied for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the order was invalid on two grounds:

i) the Deputy Minister did not consider whether criminal prosecution ought to be taken against him;

ii) the ground of detention was stale and remote in point of law to support detention under the Ordinance.

[3] The learned judge dismissed the application. The appellant appealed to this court. We heard the appeal and reserved our judgment. This is our judgment.

[4] Before dealing with each of the grounds specifically, we think there is something more fundamental that covers both grounds that has to be dealt with first. This concerns the provisions of the Ordinance itself (and also other similar laws like the Internal Security Act 1960 ("ISA 1960") and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Meas