JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1] On 22 November 2018, a detention order pursuant to s 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (Act 316) was issued by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs directing that the appellant be detained for a period of two years with effect from 22 November 2018 at the Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak, Simpang Renggam, Johor. Section 6(1) authorises the Minister to make such order if he is satisfied that such person has been or is associated with any activity relating to the trafficking in dangerous drugs and that it is necessary in the interest of public order that such person be detained.

[2] The appellant filed an application at the High Court on 27 May 2019 for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the detention order was unlawful.

[3] At the High Court, the appellant's sole ground was that the respondents failed and/or refused to produce the appellant's statement which was recorded by the Investigating Police Officer ("IPO") pursuant to s 4 of Act 316. This failure and or refusal to produce the appellant's statement, submitted learned counsel for the appellant, amounted to a substantive procedural non-compliance which justified the writ of habeas corpus to be issued.

[4] Suffice it to state that the learned judge dismissed the appellant's application on the grounds that: (i) the IPO had carried a proper investigation and examination of the appellant under s 4(1) of Act 316; and (ii) the non-production of the appellant's statement did not breach any procedural requirement under Act 316. As the High Court's decision is in respect of a habeas corpus application, this appeal was brought directly to the Federal Court without leave pursuant to s 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code.