Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

FALSE IMPRISONMENT – UNLAWFUL DETENTION – WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT CROSSES THE LINE- UNLAWFUL DETENTION AND THE QUEST FOR JUSTICE

Illustrative Scenario

X accompanied his friend, SP4, to the IPK Melaka in connection with an investigation involving a fight with a Police Officer. While waiting, X was unexpectedly taken to the room of the second officer, where he was blindfolded, stripped, and assaulted. He was then remanded for 7 days, which was later extended by another 7 days, despite being hospitalized due to the injuries sustained during the assault. Even after the extended detention, the police investigation found no evidence linking X to any wrongdoing, and no charges were filed against him.

The key issues in this scenario are whether X can sue the officers involved for damages and compensation, and whether X’s detention was unlawful.

Legal Principles & Law

  • Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC): Requires that sufficient investigation be carried out before an arrest. An arrest should not be the first step in an investigation unless it occurs during the commission of a crime. There must be reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation is well-founded; mere suspicion is insufficient.
  • Section 119 of the CPC: Mandates that a diary of proceedings be maintained during an investigation, which includes:
    a) The time at which any order for investigation was received.
    b) The times at which the investigation began and ended.
    c) A detailed statement of the circumstances uncovered during the investigation.

Application to the Scenario

  • Unlawful Detention and Damages:
    In this case, the detention of X for 7 days was unlawful. The trial judge failed to adequately consider the evidence and surrounding facts and misapplied the law by dismissing the request for a declaration that X’s detention was unlawful. Consequently, the refusal to award damages was also a misstep.
    The court is likely to determine that X’s detention was an abuse of the legal process. As a result, X could be entitled to both general and exemplary damages as compensation for the unlawful detention and mistreatment he endured at the hands of the officers.

Reference Cases

  • Public Prosecutor v Audrey Keong Mei Cheng [1997] 3 MLJ 477
  • Re The Detention of R Sivarasa & Ors [1996] 3 MLJ 611
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »
3 April ,2025 No Comments

ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us