The Book of Prof Shad.docx

The court could not insist on evidence being supplied

Info icon This preview shows pages 112–114. Sign up to view the full content.

the exercise of executive discretion was subjective. The court could not insist on evidence being supplied to the court. Nevertheless, it held that the court could take note of what was stated in the affidavit. As the evidence disclosed in the affidavit did not reveal any ground which could be relevant to security, the writ should issue. Similarly, in Minister v Jamaluddin bin Othman [1989] 1 MLJ 418, the Supreme Court upheld the quashing of a preventive detention order under the ISA because the alleged actions of the detainee (propagating Christianity amongst Muslims) posed no threat to national security. Further, the grounds for detention were insufficient to fall within the scope of the ISA. However, in Lim Say Hoe 111 Subsequently overturned by the Federal Court 112 But refer to Article 43A(2). 112
Image of page 112

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

[1995] 2 AMR 1211, the court held that a restricted residence order for rigging football matches fell within the ‘public security and order’ object of the Restricted Residence Enactment! In extradition cases, habeas corpus can issue if evidence against the accused is not sufficient: Abdul Hamid Jamal v PP [1934] MLJ 46. In this case, after the arrestee was discharged, he was arrested again on the same charge. The court again issued the writ because it was wrong to re-open the same issue. In another extradition case, Tan Hock Chan [1994] 1 MLJ 60, habeas corpus was issued on a number of substantive grounds. Firstly, because the conditions prescribed by section 3(1) of the Extradition Ordinance 1958 had not been met. Secondly, the second detention being a continuation of the first illegal detention was also invalid. Thirdly, Hong Kong (being a colony) is not a country within the meaning of the Extradition Act and the request for extradition should have been made by the U.K. In Minister v Karpal Singh [1988] 1 MLJ 468, out of several facts on which the detention order was based, one fact was entirely baseless. Habeas corpus was issued by the High Court. But the Supreme Court in reversing the High Court drew a distinction between ‘facts’ and ‘grounds’. The allegations of fact upon which the subjective satisfaction of the Minister was based are not justiciable. Whether the allegations of fact were vague, insufficient or irrelevant is not for the courts to decide. However, the court emphasized that though facts cannot be examined, the grounds of detention were open to challenge if they were not within the scope of the enabling law. In Tan Boon Aun [1991] 1 MLJ 55, a valid detention order ended at 00 hours midnight on 12 th April. On the same day at 9.30 a.m., a further order was served. But because of the break in the chain of authorization for nine and a half hours, habeas corpus was issued. In Yap Hai Sing [1995] 3 AMR 212, the writ was allowed because the officer concerned failed to apply his mind to the report of the detention received by him before forwarding the same to the Minister. In Mohd Amin Yusoh [1995] 1 CLJ 94, the detention order did not indicate the month from which the detention was to commence. The court held that the order had been made in a casual and cavalier manner and the Minister could not be said to have been satisfied. In Kumareshan v Dato Chor Chee Heung
Image of page 113
Image of page 114
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern