The Book of Prof Shad.docx

Iii in a preventive detention order under the

Info icon This preview shows pages 26–28. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
(iii) In a preventive detention order under the Dangerous Drugs Special Preventive Measures Act 1985 (DDA) the detainee must, at the time of the service of the order, be furnished with the statement containing the grounds and allegations of fact on which the detention was directed. In Kumareshan Subramaniam v Dato Chor Chee Heung [2003] 4 MLJ 384, habeas corpus was issued because the grounds on which the detention was directed were disclosed after service of the order and not at the time of the service of the order. However, it must be noted that the right in Article 5(3) can be deprived under the authority of emergency laws: Tee Yam @ Koo Tee Yam v Timbalan Menteri [2005] 5 MLJ 645; Kam Teck Soon v Timbalan Menteri [2003] 1 MLJ 321 Ahmad Fairuz, CJ (Malaya) held that section 3(1) of the Public Order Prevention of Crime Ordinance 1969 (POPO) requires the arresting officer to have “reason to believe that there are grounds”. It does not require the grounds to be informed to the arrested person”. The inconsistency with Article 5(3) is excused by Article 150(6). There was a learned dissent from Abdul Malek, FCJ that in the absence of an express recital contravening Article 5(3), it could not be lightly assumed that the basic and elementary right to know the grounds of arrest was ousted. LEGAL REPRESENTATION The second limb of Article 5(3) requires that every arrestee shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. The right to legal representation is available at two stages – first, after the arrest and second, at the trial or judicial proceedings. After arrest: Through judicial interpretations, this constitutional right has become ineffective. 26
Image of page 26

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
(i)In Ooi Ah Phua v Officer In-charge Kedah/Perlis [1975] 2 MLJ 198 and Hashim Saud v Yahya Hashim [1977] 2 MLJ 116, the courts have held that consultation with a lawyer in a police lock-up can be postponed pending police investigation: Ramli Salleh v Inspector Yahya Hashim [1973] 1 MLJ 54; Theresa Lim Chin Chin v IGP [1988] 1 MLJ 293. But in Abdul Ghani Haroon v Ketua Polis Negara (No. 3) [2001] 2 CLJ 709 the High Court was persuaded that malice was present and habeas corpus was issued. What is also remarkable is that the learned judge held that the guarantees of Article 5(3) apply even in ISA detention cases. These rights are not automatically displaced by the ISA unless the law says so explicitly. Contrast this with Tee Yam @ Koo Tee Yam (ii)In Tee Yam @ Koo Tee Yam v Timbalan Menteri [2005] 5 MLJ 645 it was held that the right to legal representation is not violated by the presence of police officers in sight and hearing at meetings between a detainee and his counsel because of the Internal Security (Detained Persons) Rules 1960. Tee Yam is in direct conflict with Ramli Salleh v Inspector Yahya Hashim [1973] 1 MLJ 54 in which Syed Agil Barakbah had ruled that “in order to render such interview effective it should be held not within the hearing of any member of the police for under the law communication between the solicitor and client is privileged. It should, however, be within the sight of the police”. The unfortunate implication of the
Image of page 27
Image of page 28
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