Power to Remand to Complete

Investigations
■ Section 117 is a machinery to enable a person to be detained in
custody for longer than 24 hours on the ground that
investigations cannot be completed within that period (Public
Prosecutor v Audrey Keong Mei Cheng [1997] 3 MLJ 477 at
481, [1997] 4 CLJ 702, CA).

1
■ Article 5(4) of the Federal Constitution and section 28 of the
CPC provide that no person shall be detained in excess of 24
hours.

2
■ However, where the police resort to the special provisions of
section 117 of the CPC, the magistrate before whom the person
arrested is brought may authorize detention under its provisions,
even if the offence with which the person arrested concerned is
a bailable offence and he is prepared to furnish bail (Maja anak
Kus v Public Prosecutor [1985] 1 MLJ 311).

3
■ An application for detention of a person to complete
investigation involves:
■ (1) production of the arrested person before a magistrate;
■ (2) transmitting a copy of the investigation diary;
■ (3) furnishing grounds for the arrested person’s detention
or continued detention in order to complete investigations.

4
■ It is mandatory for the police to produce a copy of the investigation diary
(Public Prosecutor v Audrey Keong Mei Cheng [1997] 3 MLJ 477, [1997]
4 CLJ 702, CA).
■ The need to support an application for remand with a copy of the
investigation diary is to show (Dasthigeer v Mohamed Ismail v Kerajaan
Malaysia & Anor [1999] 6 CLJ 317 at 329):

5
■ (a) firstly, the first 24 hours had been usefully utilised as
far as possible;
■ (b) secondly, why and for how long the arrested person
should continue to be held in custody and not be released on
bail; and
■ (c) thirdly, why the arrested person should be held in
police custody.

6
Production of Arrested Person

■ The object is to enable the magistrate to see that the remand is necessary
and to enable the prisoner to make any representation he may wish in the
matter.
■ The arrested person has the right to be represented by a legal practitioner
in remand proceedings unless the police can discharge the onus of
satisfying the magistrate that to allow him to exercise that right would
result in undue interference with the course of investigations.
■ Sec 28A(2)
■ Sec 28A(8)

7
Contents and Production of
Investigation Diary
■ The need to support an application for remand with a copy of the
investigation diary is to show (Dasthigeer v Mohamed Ismail v
Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor [1999] 6 CLJ 317 at 329):
■ (a) firstly, the first 24 hours had been usefully utilised as
far as is possible;
■ (b) secondly, why and for how long the arrested person
should continue to be held in custody and not be released on
bail; and
■ (c) thirdly, why the arrested person should be held in
police custody.

8
■ Ketua Polis Daerah Johor Bahru, Johor & Others v Ngui Tek
Choi [2013] 4 MLJ 504

9
Grounds for Detention

■ Hashim bin Saud v Yahaya bin Hasim [1977] 1 MLJ 259

– The purpose of the application for remand is to enable the
police to complete investigations (Hashim bin Saud v
Yahaya bin Hasim [1977] 1 MLJ 259). Stating in an
application that the remand is to enable police to complete
investigation is insufficient since the purpose of the
application is to complete investigation, it cannot itself be
the reasons or grounds supporting the application.

10
■ Re Syed Mohammad bin Syed Isa & 3 Ors [2001] 3 AMR 3769
at 3778
– The copy of entries in the investigation diary is the only
source upon which the magistrate may gauge the need for
remand (Re Syed Mohammad bin Syed Isa & 3 Ors [2001]
3 AMR 3778).

11
■ The entries must describe adequately the diligence and state of
investigations, and the statement of circumstances ascertained
through the investigation indicating (Re Syed Mohammad bin
Syed Isa & 3 Ors [2001] 2 AMR 3769 at 3778):
■ (i) the direction of the investigation for its completion;
■ (ii) the necessity of such further investigations; and
■ (iii) explaining why the remand of the suspect is necessary.

12
■ The law does not empower the police to arrest and detain
potential witnesses (Chong Fook Kam & Anor v Shaaban & Ors
[1968] 2 MLJ 50 at 54). It is an abuse of the law for police
officers to use the machinery of section 117 to compel witnesses
or potential witnesses to come forward to assist in police
investigations (Public Prosecutor v Audrey Keong Mei Cheng
[1997] 3 MLJ 477, [1997] 4 CLJ 702, CA).

13
The presence of the
Investigating Officer
■ The presence of the Investigating Officer during the remand
application is also a requisite. IO cannot assign to the
subordinate officer. Refer sec 110(3) CPC
■ Gobi a/l Loganathan & Sujendran a/l Murugam v Pendakwa
Raya - Permohonan Semakan Jenayah No:JA-43-13-04/2022
■ Arahan Amalan Ketua Hakim Negara Bil 11 tahun 2021 para 4
(a) (b), para 7 (a) (b) dan (c) dan para 10 (a).

14
Period of Detention under CPC

■ Section 117 now provides for the following maximum periods of

detention:
■ (a) 7 days where the offence being investigated is
punishable with imprisonment of less than 14 years, and
■ (b) 14 days where the offence being investigated is
punishable with death or imprisonment of 14 years or more.

15
Period of Remand for specific
Acts
■ Prevention of Crime Act
■ Prevention of Terrorism Act
■ Security Offences (Special measures) Act
■ Dangerous Drugs (Special Measures) Act
■ Immigration Act

16
Successive Applications for
Detention
■ section 117(4) known as chain smoking / chain remand
■ Dasthigeer Mohamed Ismail v Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor
[1999] 6 CLJ 317 at 312

17
■ THANK YOU

18