Which POCA procedure under Section 4 was found unlawful?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Federal Court Declared Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 Unconstitutional

The Federal Court has ordered the immediate release of businessman Zaidi Kanapiah, also known as Datuk Addy Kana, and two police corporals who were detained under the Prevention of Crime Act (Poca) 1959. Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, leading a five-member panel, ruled that the arrest and detention of the appellants under Section 4 of POCA were unlawful because the provisions themselves, specifically Sections 4(1) and 4(2), were found to be unconstitutional. This decision was based on the finding that these subsections contradict the basic structure doctrine of the Federal Constitution.
Unlawful Arrest and Detention Procedures

The Chief Justice held that the respondents, including the magistrate's court and the Inspector-General of Police, failed to meet the legal burden to justify the lawfulness of the trio's detention. The court determined that Section 4 of POCA, which outlines the procedure before a magistrate, was unconstitutional. Consequently, the initial detention based on these provisions was deemed to have no legal basis, rendering the subsequent detention unlawful and violating Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution concerning life and personal liberty.
Contradiction with the Basic Structure Doctrine

A key finding was that Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of POCA are unconstitutional as they conflict with the basic structure doctrine. Under these subsections, a magistrate is not permitted to apply their judicial mind or exercise independent discretion when deciding whether to grant a remand application. This binding of the magistrate to the directives of the executive, specifically the police and the public prosecutor, was seen as an attempt to override a fundamental feature of the judicial system, making these provisions inconsistent with the Federal Constitution and therefore void.
Non-Compliance with Remand Guidelines

Further to the unconstitutionality of the provisions, the court also found non-compliance with established guidelines when issuing the remand order. During the appeal, it was raised that the magistrate did not demonstrate that they applied the remand to the guidelines laid out by the court when issuing the order under Section 4(1) of POCA. The court discovered that there was no evidence to show adherence to these guidelines, leading the majority of the judges to allow the appeal on the grounds of this procedural non-compliance.
Illegality of Initial Arrest Under Common Gaming Houses Act

The trio's initial arrest and detention on October 11, 2020, under Section 4(1)(c) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 was also declared illegal. This arrest was found to be without basis, lacking procedural compliance, and was deemed to have been made mala fide. This initial illegality further compounded the grounds for their subsequent unlawful detention under POCA.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Which POCA procedure under Section 4 was found unlawful?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends