appellants' argument in support of such a construction failed for a number of reasons, among them being: (a) that the detaining officer in his affidavit never stated that that was the inference he had drawn; (b) purely on the information supplied by the detaining officer in his affidavit, such inference could not reasonably be drawn in that, save that the physical violence accompanying the strike was unusually extreme, the pattern of conduct in the SATS strike did not appear to have been different from the general run of strikes in the present age;
Page 42 of 49 MOHAMAD EZAM BIN MOHD NOOR v KETUA POLIS NEGARA & OTHER APPEALS (c) the strike had lasted for less than three months and, in terms of the settlement which ended it, all that had been ostensibly achieved had been the re-employment of certain workers who had been dismissed during the strike and, seemingly, the improvement of hostel facilities, which appeared to have satisfied all concerned. The court held that that seemed to negative the suggestion that the strike had other objectives falling within the ambit of paras (b) and (d) of s 54(1). The court held that, in any event, even if the detaining officer had adverted to the mental element of the offence said to have been committed under s 54(2), the facts recounted by him in his affidavit did not disclose reasonable grounds for believing that the mental element had been present when the conduct said to constitute such offence had taken place. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. On the basis of these arguments and on a careful consideration of the authorities cited, I am more inclined to agree with learned counsel for the appellants that the test for s 73 of the ISA is objective and I was, therefore, placed in a position where I could enquire as to the reasons for the belief of the relevant arresting officers when they arrested the appellants especially when they were all arrested before the so called Black 14' day on 14 April 2001. Durga Das Basu in his textbook Administrative Law at p 544 of the 2000 reprint deals with habeas corpus thus: The object of issuing the writ is to ascertain whether there is any legal justification for the detention of the person in custody. The merit of the case or the moral justification for imprisoning the petitioner is no relevant consideration in a proceeding for habeas corpus. Thus, a person charged with treason or murder is entitled to be set at liberty, if his imprisonment has not taken place in due course of law. A detention, thus, becomes unlawful not only where there is no law to justify it but also where procedure prescribed by the law which authorizes the detention has not been followed, and, in determining whether such procedure [*508] has been complied with, the court applies a strict standard, not only in interpreting the terms of the statute but also in exacting a strict compliance with the requirements, so interpreted, in fact. The need for this strict standard was explained in the celebrated dictum of Brett LJ, in Thomas Dale (1881) 6 QBD 376 ( at p 461): It is a general rule
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 50 pages?
- Spring '19