Former MyWatch chairman's detention was lawful, Appeals Court rules

The Court of Appeal has upheld the appeal by the police and government to overturn a High Court ruling that former Malaysian Crime Watch Task Force (MyWatch) chairman R. Sri Sanjeevan’s 16-day detention under the Prevention of Crime Act (Poca) 1959 was illegal.

A three-member bench, consisting of Justices Datuk S. Nantha Balan, Datuk See Mee Chun, and Datuk Azimah Omar, unanimously made the decision in online proceedings on Friday (Sept 15).

Justice Azimah, while delivering the judgment, said that the High Court made a mistake by basing its decision on the Federal Court’s ruling in a separate Poca-related case.

She stated, “The Federal Court’s decision last year cannot be applied in the present case as the detention occurred six years before the apex court declared Section 4 of Poca to be unconstitutional.

“We find that this case does not retrospectively apply against the remand under Section 4 of Poca, which took place more than five years before the Federal Court’s verdict last year,” and ordered Sri Sanjeevan to pay RM60,000 in costs.

Justice Azimah argued that a retrospective application would lead to chaos and problems, as it would render any and all remands under the same provision unconstitutional or illegal, despite being lawfully carried out when the provision was valid.

“It could be manifestly unjust for us now to condemn the Magistrate for issuing the impugned Magistrate’s warrant and for the first defendant to call the plaintiff under remand when they have done so in reliance of the provisions which were still lawful and constitutional,” she added.

Justice Azimah also noted that the High Court judge was wrong in considering the physical abuse allegation as grounds for false imprisonment claims.

She said, “It was a misdirection on the part of the learned judge to consider the allegation of physical abuse. This physical abuse during detention does not form the basis for a claim of false imprisonment.”

Additionally, Justice Azimah stated that the court reviewed all the relevant documentation leading up to the issuance of the disputed Magistrate warrant, which all bore the plaintiff’s signature and admission of awareness that the arrest and remand were conducted under Section 4 of Poca.

“This issue was not raised in the plaintiff’s written submission and was only raised during the appeal hearing. It would be inappropriate for us to consider this contention since the appellants were not given the opportunity to challenge it during the trial,” she explained.

The plaintiff, Sri Sanjevaan, sued investigating officer Asst Supt Poonnam E. Keling, the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), and the government of Malaysia, alleging wrongful detention for 16 days from July 10 to 26, 2016, and physical assault. He also sought damages for losses and injuries suffered.

Last year, on June 28, the High Court judge, Datuk Ahmad Bache, ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, declaring false imprisonment and ordering the payment of general, exemplary, and aggravated damages, with the actual amount to be determined in a separate hearing.

The judge also granted a declaration that Sri Sanjeevan’s detention was illegal and that his rights under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution were violated by ASP Poonnam, whom he held responsible for the unlawful detention, while the IGP and government were found vicariously liable for the officer’s actions.

Sri Sanjeevan was arrested on July 10, 2016, under Poca for suspected criminal involvement and was brought before a magistrate the following day, who issued a 21-day remand order.

Prior to the expiration of the remand period, Sri Sanjeevan filed a habeas corpus application to secure his release from detention, which the High Court granted on July 26, 2016, on grounds of a breach of a mandatory Poca procedure.

The government initially appealed to the Federal Court but later withdrew it. Subsequently, Sri Sanjeevan filed a civil suit against the police and government for false imprisonment. – Bernama