[2023] 6 MLRA 168

Court of Appeal, Putrajaya
S Nantha Balan, See Mee Chun, Azimah Omar JJCA
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(NCVC)-531-07-2022]
15 September 2023


Azimah Omar JCA:

[1] This is an appeal against the Learned High Court Judge's ("Learned Judge") decision dated 28th of June 2022 to allow the Respondent's claim against the Appellants for the tort of false imprisonment in respect of the remand of the Respondent under s 4(1) of the Prevention of Crimes Act 1959 ("POCA"). For convenience we shall refer to the parties by their titles in the High Court, ie Appellants as "the Defendants" and the Respondent as "the Plaintiff".

[2] In view of a myriad of police reports lodged by numerous complainants against the Plaintiff (for alleged extortion for protection money by threat of physical, business, and reputational harm), the Arresting Officer ("the 1st Defendant") had applied for a Remand Order for twenty-one (21) days under s 4(1) of POCA to the Magistrate in Kuala Lumpur on 11 July 2016.

[3] Satisfied with the 1st Defendant's due compliance of the pre-requisites under the same provision, the Magistrate accordingly issued the Warrant of Arrest dated 11 July 2016 to arrest and hold the Plaintiff under remand for 21 days until 31 July 2016 ("impugned Magistrate's Warrant"). The Plaintiff was accordingly held under remand pursuant to the impugned Magistrate's Warrant.

[4] Four (4) days after the remand under the impugned Magistrate's Warrant, the Plaintiff filed an Application for a writ of habeas corpus on 15 July 2016 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court ("Habeas Corpus Court"). On the singular issue of the impropriety of the location that the Plaintiff was held under remand as stipulated in the impugned Magistrate's Warrant, the Habeas Corpus Court had on 26 July 2016 allowed the Plaintiff's Application and ordered his immediate release.

[5] Premised on the decision of the Habeas Corpus Court in allowing the Plaintiff's Application, the Plaintiff thereafter commenced a civil action against the 1st Defendant (and vicariously against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants as the Police Force and the Government of Malaysia) for false imprisonment of 16 out of the 21 days' remand under the impugned Magistrate's Warrant. The Learned Judge allowed the Plaintiff's claim for false imprisonment on the following primary reasons:

Sign up to view full cases Login