Asmira Binti Misman v 1. ) Timbalan Menteri dalam Negeri, Malaysia (BA-44-181-06/2022)

1.

PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK

KETUA POLIS NEGARA …RESPONDENTS [ 1 ] The application was heard on the 15th of September 2022 and this court had dismissed the application. The reasons for the dismissal are set out below. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [ 2 ] A detention order dated 8.12.2021 (“detention order”) was issued by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs (“the Deputy Minister”) against the applicant under section 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (“the Act”), ordering that the applicant be detained at Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Batu Gajah, Perak for two (2) years with effect from the date of the detention order. The applicant applied for a writ of habeas corpus citing non-compliance with the Act and the Federal Constitution which renders the detention order invalid. THE ISSUES [ 3 ] The applicant’s counsel in his written submission raised five issues viz. –

Non-compliance of Article 149 of the Federal Constitution and the preamble to the Act – that the grounds and allegation of facts forming the basis for the detention order (“grounds and allegation of facts”) did not show the applicant’s involvement with a ‘substantial body of persons’ in drug trafficking activities that endangers public order;

(ii) The Respondents failed to show that the applicant’s arrest was made with the believe there are grounds which could justify his detention under subsection 6(1);

(iii) Delay by the case file’s Investigation Officer (“IO”) of 26 days to submit a complete report on the applicant under section 3(3) of the Act is an inordinate delay and the explanation given by the IO was not credible;

(iv) The delay of 16 days on the part of the Deputy Minister to issue a Detention Order against the applicant; and

Failure of the Respondents to prove that section 9 of the Act and rule 3 of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) (Advisory Board Procedure) Rules 1987 (“the Rules”) was complied with in the service and explanation of the detention order. THE LAW ON HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATIONS [ 4 ] Subsection 11C(1) of the Act allowed judicial review for non-compliance of any procedural requirement of the Act – “Judicial review of act or decision of Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Minister 11C. (1) There shall be no judicial review in any court of, and no court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of, any act done or decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Minister in the exercise of their discretionary power in accordance with this Act, save in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act governing such act or decision.” (emphasis added) [ 5 ] Various decisions of the Federal Court had strictly applied such provisions as in the following case of Rovin Joty Kodeeswaran v. Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Ors And Other Appeals1 - 1 [2021] 4 CLJ 1 “[10] Judicial review on the decision of the tribunals exercising similar functions to the Board should not be questioned except on procedural non-compliance. Such discretion in determining the substantive / policy matter by the Board was outside the reach of the courts…” [ 6 ] The burden of proving compliance with the law and procedures is always on the Respondents. [see S.K. Tangakaliswaran v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors.2, Muhammad Jailani Kasim v Timbalan Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors.3. A detenu can also take advantage of any technical imperfections in the action taken by the detaining authorities. [see Ng Hong Choon v Timbalan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri & 1 Lagi SC4]. THE FIFTH ISSUE [ 7 ] This issue relates to page 2 of the detention order i.e. the grounds and allegation of facts which was ‘missing’ from copies of the detention order appended to the Respondent’s Affidavit. After the date for filing of pleadings have passed on the 1.8.2022, counsel for the Applicant filed an application to file an Affidavit out of time (enclosure 23) supported by the applicant counsel’s Affidavit (enclosure 24). In enclosure 24, counsel had appended the applicant’s Affidavit Jawapan Pemohon together with the missing page 2 to the detention order (the grounds and allegation of facts) appended to the Affidavit Jawapan of Mohd Yusof bin Harun (enclosure 11), Inspektor Vijaya a/l Kumar (enclosure 18) and Dato’ Sri Haji Ismail bin Haji Mohamd Said (enclosure 5). 2 [2009] 6CLJ 705 3 [2006] 4 CLJ 687] 4 [1994] 4 CLJ 47, at p.55]. [ 8 ] In paragraph 4 and 5 of enclosure 24, the applicant’s counsel stated her belief that page 2 of the detention order was “tertinggal” (accidentally left out). As such, counsel avers that the application to file the missing page 2 will not prejudice the Respondents but would in fact assist parties and the court. [ 9 ] Federal Counsel (“FC”) representing the Respondents initially objected to the application but on the date of hearing on 15.8.2022, the FC withdrew the objection and the court allowed applicant counsel’s application to file the applicant’s Affidavit Jawapan. [ 10 ] Alas, there was no filing of the applicant’s Affidavit Jawapan but counsel instead filed a written submission on 5.9.2022 (enclosure 27 and 28). The FC on the other hand filed two Affidavit Tambahan of Dato’ Sri Dr. Haji Ismail bin Haji Mohamed Said (enclosure 31) and Inspektor Vijay a/l Kumar (enclosure 32) appending the missing page 2 to the detention order. [ 11 ] Interestingly, the applicant’s counsel in his written submission made the missing page 2 of the detention order a fifth issue in his submission, claiming that the Respondents fail to show compliance with section 9 of the Act because of the missing page 2 of the detention order. [ 12 ] The court is of the view that the learned counsel – after stating that the missing page 2 was “tertinggal” and stating it’s filing will not prejudice the parties is estopped from reversing their stand and making the missing page 2 one of their issues i.e. the alleged failure of the Respondents to prove that the service and explanation of the detention order was properly done. Learned Counsel’s application in enclosure 23 and 24 clearly showed a complete detention order was indeed properly served to the applicant under section 9 of the Act. [ 13 ] As such, the court exercised its’ discretion under Order 1A and Order 2, rule (1) of the Rules of Court 2012 to allow the filing of enclosure 31 and 32 to be considered together with the rest of the pleadings in this case. It follows that the court finds no merit to the fifth issue raised by the learned counsel. THE SUBMISSIONS AND FINDING ON THE OTHER FOUR ISSUES FIRST ISSUE: Non-compliance of Article 149 of the Federal Constitution and the preamble to the Act – that the grounds and allegation of facts forming the basis for the detention order (“grounds and allegation of facts”) did not show the applicant’s involvement with a ‘substantial body of persons’ in drug trafficking activities that endangers public order. [ 14 ] Learned counsel submitted that the intention of Parliament in legislating the Act was to eradicate syndicated crimes relating to drug trafficking, thus the detention order is defective when the grounds and allegation of facts did not show that the applicant was part of a substantial group of persons (syndicate) involved in drug trafficking to justify the issuance of a detention order5 – 5 Applicant’s written submission, Enc…, p.18 “21. Memandangkan niat penggubalan Akta tersebut adalah untuk membanteras jenayah bersindiket berkaitan dengan aktiviti pengedaran dadah maka pengataan-pengataan fakta yang dikeluarkan terhadap Pemohon harus jelas menunjukkan penglibatan Pemohon sebagai sebahagian daripada satu kumpulan sindiket yang besar dalam menjalankan aktiviti pengedaran dadah yang bertujuan untuk mengancam ketenteraman awam. Keterangan TMDN di dalam Afidavit Jawapan yang mengatakan penglibatan Pemohon dengan sekumpulan besar orang adalah tidak selari dengan pengataan-pengataan fakta yang dikeluarkan. Mahkamah Persekutuan telah menyatakan cubaan TMDN untuk memperbaiki apa yang tidak ditunjukkan di dalam pengataan-pengataan fakta adalah salah.” [ 15 ] Learned counsel relied among others, on the Federal Court’s decision in Selva Vinayagam a/l Sures v TMDN & 2 ors6. Learned counsel also argued that failure to state the applicant’s involvement with a substantial group of persons in the allegations of facts cannot be repaired in the Deputy Minister’s Affidavit Jawapan, relying on the decision in Lee Soon Tiang v TMDN Malaysia & Ors7. [ 16 ] Learned FC submitted that Selva Vinayagam’s case (supra) laid down what should be reflected in the grounds and allegation of facts – that a detenu is involved with a substantial body of persons in drug trafficking 6 [2021] 2 CLJ 29 7 [2021] MLJU 2718 activities, he did not act alone and there should be the Minister’s satisfaction that it is in the interest of public order that a detenu be subjected to a preventive detention. Therefore, it is argued that the facts of each case be carefully perused to ensure conformity with the conditions set out in that case. The allegation of facts in Selva Vinayagam’s case was found to only showed that the applicant acted alone. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS [ 17 ] The Long title and preamble to the Act states – “An Act to provide for the preventive detention of persons associated with any activity relating to or involving the trafficking in dangerous drugs.

the making, producing, compounding and assembling of the drug;

the making, producing, compounding and assembling a preparation of the drug;

the refining or transformation of the drug into another dangerous drug; and

any process done in the course of the foregoing activities;” [ 21 ] The activities included in the interpretation of drug trafficking generally, cannot be carried out by one person. For example, ‘buy’ or ‘sell’ involves at least 2 persons, but usually many more as it often involves a distributor or agent. To ‘manufacture’ requires a supply of the raw goods/substance, other chemicals or ingredients to turn it into a finished product and demands from users for the finished product. The chain of drug trafficking would involve a substantial number of persons; a syndicate to operate successfully. A person acting alone in drug trafficking may be possible if he deals with organic materials such as cannabis where he may be able to plant the tree, cultivate and sell the finished product like dried leaves all by himself. But, it would be too far-fetched to say the same for synthetic drugs as the need for drug materials and chemicals would require suppliers and the use of a lab. [ 22 ] The existence of these activities and syndicates is long recognized by Parliament which is reflected in the explanation on the drafting of the Act during the reading and debate of the Bill to the Act shown in the Parliament Hansard8 – “Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1962 yang telah dipinda beberapa kali nampaknya tidak memberi kesan dalam gerakan membanteras pengedaran dadah kerana ketua-ketua sindiket, pedagang dan pengedar dadah tidak dapat ditangkap dengan memiliki dadah kerana pengaliran dadah secara fizikal adalah dilakukan oleh orang-orang suruhan mereka sahaja.” … “...peruntukan undang-undang di bawah Ordinan Darurat (Ketenteraman Awam dan Mencegah Jenayah) 1969...tidak memberi kesan pencegahan, dengan izin, "deterrance" terhadap ketua-ketua pengedar, pedagang sindiket dadah kerana:

tempoh 2 tahun tersebut tidak dapat melumpuhkan infrastruktur sindiket-sindiket dadah kerana keuntungan yang besar yang mereka telah perolehi dari pengerdaran dadah dapat mengganti, dengan izin, 'compensate' tempoh tahanan yang mereka jalani selama 2 tahun tersebut; dan 8 PENYATA RASMI PARLIMEN, JILID II, BIL. 35, PARLIMEN KEENAM, PENGGAL KEDUA BERTARIKH 17 OKTOBER 1984 DI MUKA SURAT 5140 – 5141

ketua-ketua pengedar, pedagang, sindiket dadah enggan memberi kerjasama kepada agensi penguatkuasa untuk membanteras kegiatan-kegiatan sindikit pengedar dadah kerana mereka mengetahui bahawa selepas tempoh 2 tahun mereka akan tetap dibebaskan.” “Adalah juga didapati bahawa tempoh tahanan selama dua tahun di bawah Ordinan Darurat (Ketenteraman Awam dan Pencegahan Jenayah) 1969 tidak seimbang dengan hukuman mati mandatori ataupun wajib yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 39 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Ini adalah kerana orang-orang upahan ataupun "courier" sindiket dadah dikenakan hukuman gantung sampai mati di bawah seksyen 39(b) sedangkan ketua-ketua sindiket, pengedar, pembiayai dan pengurus perniagaan haram ini yang sebenarnya hanya dikenakan tahanan pencegahan selama dua tahun sahaja.” Bagi mengatasi kelemahan-kelemahan dalam Undang-undang kita maka Rang Undang-undang Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1984 digubalkan.” 5141”. [ 23 ] The scourge of drug trafficking managed by heads of drug syndicates and carried out by couriers and orang-orang suruhan is acknowledged and recognized and the weaknesses in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and other preventive detention laws forms the basis of the Act. These syndicates were not named nor is there a need to name them as it continues to be a threat to public order in this country as reflected by the daily news of drug-related arrests by enforcement agencies which the court should take judicial notice. [ 24 ] The grounds and allegation of facts relating to a detention order of a detenu must be scrutinised to see if it reflects the object of the preamble to the Act as elaborated in Selva Vinayagam’s case - not to repeat it verbatim as suggested by learned counsel. The Federal Court in Muhammad Redzuan Omar v TMDN & anor.9 said – “[30] We agree with the rationale in Selva Vinayagam (supra). However, having regard to the issues argued before us it is opportune to distinguish Selva Vinayagam (supra) and this appeal on the facts and the law. Careful scrutiny of the facts and the documentary evidence of this appeal shows that it is distinguishable from Selva Vinayagam (supra). The most obvious distinguishing fact is that in this appeal there are expressed statements that the Appellant was not acting alone…” (emphasis added) [ 25 ] The court’s perusal of the grounds and allegation of facts in this case as attached to the Deputy Minister’s Affidavit Jawapan Tambahan (“DSIMS-2” of enclosure 31) and his averments of satisfaction (paragraph 8, enclosure 5) found it has fulfilled the conditions set out in Selva Vinayagam case. The grounds and allegation of facts are reproduced below – “ALASAN-ALASAN YANG ATASNYA PERINTAH ITU DIBUAT: Bahawa kamu bersama sekumpulan besar orang pernah ada kaitan dengan apa-apa aktiviti yang berhubungan dengan atau yang melibatkan dengan pengedaran dadah berbahaya seperti yang ditakrifkan di bawah Seksyen 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 9 Criminal Appeal No.05(HC)-73-04/2021(B) (Akta 234) iaitu mengedar dadah jenis Heroin, dan dadah jenis Syabu yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seperti yang tersenarai di bawah Jadual Pertama, Bahagian III, Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (Akta 234). Oleh itu, tindakan kamu telah memudaratkan ketenteraman awam dan tindakan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 perlu diambil ke atas kamu. PENGATAAN-PENGATAAN FAKTA YANG ATASNYA PERINTAH ITU DIASASKAN:-

Bahawa kamu didapati terlibat dengan aktiviti pengedaran dadah berbahaya jenis Heroin dan dadah jenis Syabu yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine sejak awal bulan Julai 2019 hingga 9 Oktober 2021 secara tidak berterusan di sekitar kawasan tepi jalan Kampung Selabak, Teluk Intan, Perak, di sekitar kawasan simpang masuk ke Kampung Glouster, Batu 3, Jalan Changkat Jong, Teluk Intan, Perak dan di sekitar kawasan hadapan rumah, Kampung Selat Manggis, Teluk Intan, Perak.

Bahawa kamu didapati menjual dadah berbahaya jenis Heroin dalam bentuk peket (anggaran berat 28.0 gram hingga 56.0 gram sepeket) berharga RM400.00 hingga RM800.00 sepeket.

Bahawa kamu didapati membeli bekalan dadah berbahaya jenis Heroin dalam bentuk peket (anggaran berat 56.0 gram sepeket) berharga RM700.00 sepeket daripada rakan sejenayah dan membuat pembungkusan semula ke dalam bentuk peket kecil pelbagai saiz bagi tujuan pengedaran.

Bahawa kamu didapati menjual dadah jenis Syabu yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine dalam bentuk peket (anggaran berat 5.0 gram sepeket) berharga RM400.00 sepeket dan dalam bentuk peket (anggaran berat 12.5 gram hingga 25.0 gram sepeket) berharga RM700.00 hingga RM1200.00 sepeket.

Bahawa kamu didapati membeli bekalan dadah jenis Syabu yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine dalam bentuk peket (anggaran berat 25.0 gram sepeket) berharga RM1100.00 sepeket daripada rakan sejenayah dan membuat pembungkusan semula dalam bentuk peket kecil pelbagai saiz bagi tujuan pengedaran.” [ 26 ] The court finds that the grounds had made reference to the applicant’s involvement with a substantial group of persons and the allegation of facts read together with the Deputy Minister’s Affidavit (supra) that clearly stated his satisfaction of the applicant’s drug trafficking activity together with a substantial body of persons, justified the issuance of the detention order. [ 27 ] The court also finds that the Minister’s averments of his satisfaction (supra) of the applicant’s involvement with a substantial body of persons is not an afterthought as the phrase was also stated in the grounds of the detention order. The detailed allegation of facts showed the applicant did not act alone and had dealings with a substantial number of persons in his various activities along the chain of drug trafficking. The facts in this case is clearly distinguishable from the facts in Selva Vinayagam. SECOND ISSUE: The Respondents failed to show that the applicant’s arrest was made with the believe there are grounds which could justify his detention under subsection 6(1). [ 28 ] Learned counsel submitted the Respondents Affidavit Jawapan had failed to state that the applicant was arrested in the belief that he was involved with a substantial body of persons in activities of drug trafficking- “Di dalam kes ini, meneliti keseluruhan Afidavit-Afidavit Jawapan Responden, kami mendapati bahawa Inspektor Norhazwani binti Che Deraman iaitu pegawai polis yang telah menangkap Pemohon di bawah seksyen 3(1) Akta tersebut (rujuk perenggan 4 Afidavit Jawapan beliau) telah gagal menyatakan bahawa tangkapan terhadap Pemohon adalah atas kepercayaan bahawa Pemohon terlibat dengan sekumpulan besar orang di dalam aktiviti pengedaran dadah.” [ 29 ] While learned FC argued that the issue raised by counsel is not a procedural issue under the Act relying on Lee Kew Sang v TMDN Malaysia & Ors10. It is not for the courts to create procedural requirements or rules. Section 3(1) allows for the arrest of a person that a police officer has reason to believe there are grounds which could justify his detention under subsection 6(1) as duly stated by Inspektor Norhazwani binti Che Deraman in paragraph 4, enclosure 6. 10 [2005] 3 CLJ 914 [ 30 ] The court agrees with the FC’s argument that section 3(1) of the Act gives power to a police officer to arrest any person that he has reason to believe there are grounds which could justify his detention under subsection 6(1) only. The provision does not require for an elaborate statement on what was the ground relied on and who were involved. After all that is the reason for an investigation – to inquire whether such reasons exist in order that a detention order under section 6(1) can be issued or not. The arrest under section 3(1) of the Act sets in motion the investigation where details can be gathered and filled up11. It is similar to the effect of a first information report under section 107 of the CPC. There is no merit to this issue. THIRD ISSUE: Delay by the case file’s Investigation Officer (“IO”) of 26 days to submit a complete report on the applicant under section 3(3) of the Act is an inordinate delay and the explanation given by the IO was not credible. [ 31 ] Learned counsel argued that the explanation by the IO for taking 26 days to submit a complete report under section 3(3) of the Act was not credible and the time taken is not compatible wit convenient speed thus amounts to a non-compliance of the Act. It was argued that the IO had taken too much time looking for other witnesses when he had already recorded statements from three witnesses. Learned counsel relied on the 11 Herchun Singh & Ors v. Public Prosecutor [1969] 1 LNS 52; [1969] 2 MLJ 209 decision in Chua Kian Voon v MDN Malaysia & Ors12 dan TMDN Malaysia & Anor v Awang Sari bin Lasikan13. [ 32 ] Learned FC also relying on Awang Sari’s decision (supra) and Vignasevaran A/L John Joseph v TMDN Malaysia & Ors14 argued that each case needs to be examined on its own merit, the explanation of the IO must be scrutinized. It was submitted that the IO’s detailed and clear explanation is reasonable and credible. [ 33 ] The court agrees with learned SFC’s submission that the IO’s explanation in his Affidavit Jawapan at paragraph 14(e), enclosure 18 to be reasonable and credible. The IO did take some time to look for other witnesses (about 8 days) and the court finds this to be acceptable especially in preventive detention cases to ensure a complete an investigation as possible to aid the Minister in his decision whether to issue a detention order or not. [ 34 ] It is only when the IO had concluded that the search for witnesses cannot be continued as the witnesses do not have a known permanent address that he decided to prepare a complete report with evidences in his possession. The decision not to continue tracing witnesses is not one to be taken lightly or in haste in view of the nature of preventive detention. Thus, the court finds no merit to this issue. 12 [2020] 1 CLJ 747 13 [05(HC)-69-04/2021(B) 14 [2021] 1LNS 918 FOURTH ISSUE: The delay of 16 days on the part of the Deputy Minister to issue a Detention Order against the applicant. [ 35 ] It was argued by learned counsel that TMDN did not act with convenient speed in issuing a detention order against the applicant (16 days). There was also no explanation given why it took 16 days for the detention order to be made. The case of TMDN v Liau Nyun Fui15 involving a delay of 6 weeks was referred. [ 36 ] Learned FC submitted that there is no provision or a prescribed time for the Minister to issue a detention order after receiving both reports from the IO and Inquiry Officer under section 3(3) and 5(4) 0f the Act. Relying on the decisions in Kannan Supramaniam v MDN & Ors16 and N.Ramakrishnan P.Nagasamy v Timbalan Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors17, it was argued that the issue of non-compliance does not arise in this case. [ 37 ] In N.Ramakrishnan P.Nagasamy v Timbalan Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors (supra) it was stated – by Nallini Pathmanathan J (as she then was) – 15 [1991] 1 CLJ (rep) 458 16 [2019] 1LNS 1744 17 [2008] 7 CLJ 480 “[28] It therefore follows that there is no requirement that the Minister set out or specify the date when he was ‘satisfied’ because it is the date of the detention order. It would therefore follow that there was a gap of some four days between the day when the Minister received the report from the inquiry officer on 2 August 2006 and the issuance of the order on 6 August 2006. There is no requirement that the Minister must make his decision on whether or not to exercise his discretion immediately upon receiving the relevant reports. That would attract the criticism of failing to give any adequate consideration to the reports which is a crucial part of the basis for his decision.” (emphasis added) [ 38 ] The court agrees with learned FC that there is no such requirement for the Minister to issue a detention order within any prescribed time under section 6(1) of the Act. CONCLUSION [ 39 ] The court finds no merit on the issues raised by learned counsel for the applicant. Accordingly, the application for habeas corpus is dismissed. (JULIA BINTI IBRAHIM) Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam, Selangor. Dated : 15th September 2022 Counsel: For the Applicant Jay Moy Wei Jiun Advocates and Solicitors Tetuan Jay & Jay Petaling Jaya, Selangor. For the Respondents Muhammad Idzwan bin Ishak Federal Counsel Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri Malaysia Putrajaya.