15 Jul JAIDEEP SINGH DALIP SINGH V ASP MAHATHIR ABDULLAH SAPAWI & ORS [2017] MLJU 2234
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Parties to the Suit:
Appellants: Jaideep Singh Dalip Singh and others
Respondents: ASP Mahathir Abdullah Sapawi & Ors
Case Type: Criminal Appeals
Relevant Provisions: Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA), specifically Section 4(1)(a) and 4(2)(ii). The case also heavily involves Article 5(4) of the Federal Constitution and the common law principle of habeas corpus.
Overview of the Case
The case of Jaideep Singh Dalip Singh v ASP Mahathir Abdullah Sapawi & Ors centered on a legal challenge to the detention of several individuals under the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA). The appellants had been remanded by a Magistrate under POCA and filed separate applications for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention.
The High Court dismissed their applications based on a preliminary objection by the prosecution. The High Court judge held that the proper legal avenue to challenge the remand order was through an appeal or revision, not a writ of habeas corpus, and that the appellants were wrongly challenging the constitutionality of a law that could only be determined by the Federal Court.
The appellants then appealed to the Federal Court. The key issue before the Federal Court was whether a writ of habeas corpus was the appropriate legal remedy to challenge a remand order made under a preventive detention law.
The Federal Court held that the High Court judge had made a mistake. It clarified the critical distinction between punitive detention (detention after a trial and conviction) and preventive detention (detention without trial). The court stated that when a Magistrate issues a remand order under a preventive detention law like POCA, they are not acting in their judicial capacity as a court, but as a detaining authority. Therefore, the proper mode to challenge such a detention is a writ of habeas corpus, which is a remedy for an unlawful or improper detention. The Federal Court thus allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s order and directing that the appellants’ habeas corpus applications be heard on their merits. This decision affirmed the right of individuals to use habeas corpus to challenge detentions made under preventive laws.