JUDGMENT

Augustine Paul FCJ:

The dominant issue for determination in this case is the extent to which, if any, a valid detention order made against a person under s. 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("the Act") can be vitiated by irregularities in his arrest and detention under s. 3 of the Act. All references in this judgment to sections shall be to sections of the Act.

Briefly stated the facts of the case in relation to the principal ground of appeal of the appellant are that he was arrested by Constable Fauzi bin Khalid on 13 April 2004 at 3.45 pm for the purpose of investigation under s. 3(1). He was detained at the Tun HS Lee Police Station lockup for further investigations. On 15 April 2004 at 3pm Assistant Superintendent of Police Jaafar bin Hj Mat authorised the further detention of the appellant under s. 3(2)(b). The material part of his authorisation reads as follows:

MAKA DENGAN DEMIKIAN, pada menjalankan kuasa-kuasa yang diberi oleh Seksyen 3(2)(b) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985, saya dengan ini memberi kebenaran untuk melanjutkan tempoh penahanan orang yang dinyatakan di atas bagi jangkamasa tambahan melebihi 48 jam mulai jam 1545 hrs pada 15 April 2004.

Acting Superintendent of Police Shukaime bin Abu Samah is a police officer designated by the Inspector General for the purpose of receiving the report of the circumstances of the arrest and detention and to report the same to the Minister under s. 3(2)(c). In his affidavit affirmed on 10 January 2005, he said:

Pada 22/4/2004, saya telah menerima laporan hal keadaan penangkapan dan penahanan terhadap MOHAMAD FAIZAL BIN HARIS (selepas ini disebut sebagai 'Pemohon') dari DEPUTI SUPERINTENDAN POLIS BALJEET SINGH A/L KARTAR SINGH, seorang Pegawai Kanan Polis yang bertugas di Jabatan Narkotik, Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Kuala Lumpur.

Setelah menerima laporan tersebut, saya telah mengkaji dan meneliti laporan tersebut dan berpuashati bahawa terdapat sebab-sebab yang boleh dipercayai bahawa ada alasan-alasan yang mematutkan pemohon ditahan di bawah Seksyen 6(1) Akta tersebut. Oleh kerana itu, saya telah bersetuju bahawa penahanan terhadap pemohon dilanjutkan melebihi 14 hari dengan tujuan untuk meneruskan siasatan.

Pada 26/4/2004 jam 8.35 petang, saya telah menyediakan laporan hal keadaan penangkapan dan penahanan itu serta melaporkan keadaan tersebut kepada Menteri Dalam Negeri.

On 11 June 2004 the Minister issued the detention order upon consideration of the report of investigation of the police officer submitted to him under s. 3(3) and the report of the inquiry officer as required by s. 5(4). It was served on the appellant the same day. He filed a writ of habeas corpus on 13 September 2004 to secure his release.

Learned counsel argued in the High Court that the irregularities in the arrest and detention of the appellant under s. 3(2) had vitiated the order of detention issued by the Minister under s. 6(1). The learned High Court Judge did not agree with the submission and dismissed the application for the writ of habeas corpus. In the appeal before us the argument was re-canvassed by the appellant. It is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act in order to appreciate the argument advanced. They read as follows:

Section 3

(1) Any police officer may, without warrant, arrest and detain, for the purpose of investigation, any person in respect of whom he has reason to believe there are grounds which could justify his detention under subsection (1) of s. 6.

(2) Any person arrested and detained under this section may be detained in police custody for a period not exceeding sixty days without an order of detention having been made in respect of him under subsection (1) of s. 6.

Provided that:

(a) he shall not be detained for more than twenty four hours except with the authority of a police officer of or above the rank of Inspector;

(b) he shall not be detained for more than forty eight hours excep