Sri Sanjeevan A/L Ramakrishnan V ASP Poonnam E Keling & Ors [2025] 3 MLJ 296

Federal Court (Putrajaya)

Tort — False imprisonment — Detention

1. The Appellant, Sri Sanjeevan a/l Ramakrishnan, was arrested on 10 July 2016 by the first Respondent, a police officer, under section 3 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA). The next day, 11 July 2016, the first Respondent applied to the Magistrates’ Court for a remand order under subsection 4(1) of POCA.
2. The Magistrate granted a 21-day remand from 11 to 31 July 2016 and issued a detention warrant directing that the Appellant be held at the Police Remand Centre, Jalan Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur. However, this centre was not a gazetted place of detention as required by law, and the wording of the warrant was inconsistent with paragraph 4(1)(a) of POCA because it referred to “penjara” (prison) and alleged a charge under paragraph 4(1)(a), although the Appellant had been arrested only for investigation under section 3.
3. While still in custody, the Appellant applied to the High Court on 15 July 2016 for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his detention was unlawful. On 26 July 2016, the High Court allowed the application, finding that the detention warrant was defective for several reasons, including the non-gazetted detention location and the confusing reference to a charge that was never brought. The Court ordered the Appellant’s immediate release. Although the Respondents initially filed an appeal, they later withdrew it.
4. Following his release, the Appellant filed a civil suit in the High Court against the arresting officer, the police, and the Government, claiming damages for the tort of false imprisonment for the 16-day detention period and alleging physical abuse during custody. In 2022, the High Court ruled in his favour, holding the detention unlawful and awarding damages.
5. The Respondents appealed, and in 2023 the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the remand was executed under a valid Magistrate’s order and that the earlier habeas corpus ruling did not conclusively establish false imprisonment.
6. The Appellant then obtained leave to appeal to the Federal Court

1. Whether the successful habeas corpus order—which declared the detention unlawful—automatically established the tort of false imprisonment against the police and Government?

(1)  Whether the successful habeas corpus order which declared the detention unlawful automatically established the tort of false imprisonment against the police and Government?

(a) The Federal Court answered this question in the negative, clarifying that an order of habeas corpus under Clause (2) of Article 5 of the Federal Constitution only secures the detainee’s release and does not by itself create liability in tort. To succeed in a claim for false imprisonment, a plaintiff must prove the detention was carried out without lawful authority. Once a valid judicial order of remand has been issued, liability for false imprisonment ends for the officer who sought or executed that order (paras 37–38, 42, 50).

(b) The Court further explained that paragraph 365(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the High Court merely to order release in habeas corpus proceedings and does not allow the award of damages. Therefore, a person released on habeas corpus must file a separate civil action and satisfy all elements of the tort of false imprisonment; success in one proceeding does not guarantee success in the other (paras 39–40, 44, 46).

(c)  The Federal Court also ruled that the magistrate’s technical error in stating a non-gazetted detention location could not be attributed to the arresting officer. The officer merely executed the magistrate’s warrant and thus bore no liability (para 52).

(d) Finally, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s application of the doctrine of prospective overruling. The Federal Court’s earlier decision in Nivesh Nair—which had declared section 4 of POCA unconstitutional—could not apply retrospectively to a 2016 remand that was lawful when issued. Applying Nivesh Nair retrospectively would create unjust consequences and open the floodgates to claims for false imprisonment based on past lawful remands (paras 17–20).

(e)  Accordingly, the Federal Court concluded that a habeas corpus order is not conclusive proof of false imprisonment and that officers executing a valid judicial warrant cannot be held liable in tort merely because the warrant was later found defective.

1. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The detention was pursuant to a Magistrate’s warrant; the police merely executed a judicial order, so no false imprisonment was established.

1. Habeas corpus release does not automatically prove false imprisonment.
2. False imprisonment requires detention without lawful authority.
3. Execution of a valid court order shields officers from liability.
4. Procedural defects by a magistrate do not make executing officers liable.
5. A separate tort claim is needed for damages; habeas corpus provides only release.