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

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us