[2017] 4 MLRA 455

Federal Court, Putrajaya
Raus Sharif CJ, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ramly Ali, Prasad Sandosham Abraham, Jeffrey Tan FCJJ
[Criminal Appeal No: 05-153-06-2016 (R)]
1 June 2017


Prasad Sandosham Abraham FCJ:


[1] We heard and allowed this appeal on 12 April 2017. In light of the fact that our decision involved an interpretation of s 10(2) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA) and that there are several pending appeals revolving around the said section, when allowing the appeal we intimated to the counsel that grounds of judgment would follow and we now append our said grounds.

Material Fact

[2] The material facts of this instant case are clearly elucidated in the grounds of judgment of the learned High Court Judge.

[3] Essentially, on 5 July 2015, the respondent was arrested under s 3(1) of POCA. The respondent was then remanded pursuant to s 4(1)(a) and s 4(2) (a) of POCA so as to enable the Inquiry Officer (Nor Jamilah Shuhadah binti Tohet) to conduct an investigation pursuant to s 9 of POCA.

[4] The Inquiry Officer then prepared a Report from the findings of her Inquiry as required under s 10 of POCA. The Inquiry Officer did all that was needed until the commencement of the Board which sat on 3 September 2015.

[5] The respondent was subsequently detained for a period of two years from 3 September 2015 at "Pusat Pemulihan Khas" Bentong, Pahang on a Detention Order (the said Order) issued by the Board pursuant to s 19A(1) of POCA.

[6] Inspector Ismantie the Officer having custody of the respondent, on 19 August 2015 received the Report from the Inquiry Officer On the same day (19 August 2015) at 1.55pm the said Inspector served a copy of the Report to the respondent pursuant to s 10(2) of POCA. The issue in this appeal pertains to the time-frame between the time the said Inspector received the report to the time the said Inspector served it to the respondent and whether it could be construed as "forthwith". Section 10(2) and the requirement of service of the "forthwith" applies from the service and the Inquiry report by the Officer having custody of the respondent, on the respondent and the consideration of the court should be confined to that.

Sign up to view full cases Login