Ogos 21, 2024

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

Sorotan Terkini

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.