Presentation Zaidah BT Ismail V Inspektor Rabiatul Adawiayah BT Mohd Noor & Ors and Another Appeal (2021) MLJU 2109

Case Presentation Tuto 1
Zaidah bt Ismail v Inspektor Rabiatul

Adawiayah bt Mohd Noor & Ors and another
appeal [2021] MLJU 2109
UK4033 Criminal Procedure 1

• Category: Unlawful Arrest
• Court: Court of Appeal (Putrajaya)

• Started from High Court in Kuala Terengganu
Brief Facts
• Budi, 1st P’s foreign worker ran • 1st P remanded for 7 days then
away and claimed 2nd P assaulted released
him. • 2nd P released by DNAA after 23 days
from arrest.
• 2nd D, police, suspected Budi was • Ps claimed that their arrest and
trafficked and abused, thus: detention was unlawful thus sought
• Arrested 1st P for human damages from the defendants as they
trafficking under S13(f) Anti suffered physically and mentally
Trafficking in Person and • At HC, even though damages were
Smuggling of Migrants 2007 (Act granted to the 1st defendant, it was
670), and ruled that P’s arrest and detention were
• 2nd P for causing hurt under lawful.
Section 323 of Penal Code. • The defendants appealed.
• Issue: Whether the arrest of the 1st plaintiff and 2nd
plaintiff were done with reasonable and probable cause
under Section 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code
(CPC)?
Arguments
Plaintiff Defendant
- Defendants’ search, arrest and detention were unlawful -The arrest and detention were lawful as it was done with
as they were done without warrant and they did not abide reasonable and probable cause. D claimed that they owned
by the procedures laid down in S23(1)(a) of CPC. the power to arrest without warrant according to to S29 of
Act 670 and S23(1)(a) of CPC.
- No reasonable cause to arrest and detain the 1st P on
remand for 7 days as there is nothing done by 1st P that - They only have to establish that there is reasonable
showed her coercing anyone to acquire labour or services suspicion of the Ps engaging in the commission of an
which warrant her arrest under Act 670 offence under Act 670 in order to justify their arrest without
warrant.
- Already established in High Court that Budi was legally
permitted to work for the 1st Plaintiff. - The First Information Report (FIR) has showed reasonable
suspicion that the element of forced labour exist with the
presence of beating which happened on a few occasions +1st
P’s failure to pay Budi’s wages for 3 months.
Case Judgement and Ratio Decidendi
• Arrest of 1st P was held unlawful as it was considered unreasonable.
Court referred to two principal cases:
(i) Hassan Marsom case (Federal Court)
“whether there was wrongful arrest or not depends on whether the police had reasonable or probable
cause to effect the arrest on the respondent which depends on whether the police had credible information
or held reasonable suspicion as to the commission of the offence.”
(ii) Masa ak Nangkai & Ors v Sgt Edwin Nancha & Anor (Court of Appeal)
“where the court held that the question whether there was wrongful arrest and detention would very much
depend on whether the police had acted within the provision of section 23(1) (a) of the CPC and to rely on
that section the police had to show they had reasonable or probable cause to effect the arrest in that they
had received credible information or held a reasonable suspicion as to the commission of an offence.”
Case Judgement and Ratio Decidendi
• It was unnecessary for the police to arrest and
detain the 1st plaintiff as there was nothing to
implicate the 1st plaintiff with any offence under
Act 670. It was also noted that Budi’s salary was based on the
completion of his work. Hence, it would only amount
• The court found that there were no credible to contractual dispute between Budi and the 1st
information received or reasonable suspicion plaintiff shall there be any dispute to Budi’s payment
existed before the 1st defendant for the 1st of salary, where it would not indicate the commission
plaintiff to be arrested in respect of a seizable of any criminal offence for which the power of arrest
offence: can be exercised for the purposes of investigations.
(i) Budi’s work permit is legal
(ii)Budi’s complaint of assault against the 2nd
plaintiff does not constitute a seizable offence which
permitted the 1st defendant to arrest him.
THE END
Any Questions?

Presentation Zaidah BT Ismail V Inspektor Rabiatul Adawiayah BT Mohd Noor & Ors and Another Appeal (2021) MLJU 2109

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Presentation Zaidah BT Ismail V Inspektor Rabiatul Adawiayah BT Mohd Noor & Ors and Another Appeal (2021) MLJU 2109

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Presentation Zaidah BT Ismail V Inspektor Rabiatul Adawiayah BT Mohd Noor & Ors and Another Appeal (2021) MLJU 2109

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Presentation Tuto 1

Zaidah bt Ismail v Inspektor Rabiatul

UK4033 Criminal Procedure 1

• Court: Court of Appeal (Putrajaya)

You might also like