Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| Published date | 01 April 1970 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837003400206 |
| Date | 01 April 1970 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Judicial Committee
of
the
Privy Council
ARREST
ON
REASONABLE
SUSPICION
Shaaban
bin
Hussien
v.
Chong
Fook
Kan
ALT HO U GH this case (1969, 3 All E.R. 1626) was technically
concerned with s.23(i) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code of
Malaysia, the decision come to depends
upon
the meaning of
arrest
upon
reasonable suspicion, according to
the
test which has
long been established
at
common law
and
the
Board therefore
considered
at
length
the
English decisions relating to arrest (see
p. 1632 E).
The
respondents were alleged to be the driver
and
attendant
of
alorry loaded with timber pulling atrailer similarly loaded which
had
failed to stop after a piece of timber
had
fallen from the trailer
killing the occupant
of
a
car
passing in the opposite direction.
Early the next day, the police found the two
men
whom
they
suspected
and
at
9a.m. they arrested
them
under
s.23(i) (a) of the
Code on the ground
that
they
had
"a
reasonable suspicion"
that
they
were guilty of reckless or dangerous driving causing death. At 6
p.m.,
the
men
were locked in a police station cell
and
next
day
appeared
before a magistrate who remanded
them
for seven days.
But they were released on the following day, as the police found
that
there was insufficient evidence to proceed against them. Both
men
sued the police for unlawful arrest
and
false imprisonment.
The
net
question was whether the police suspicion was reasonable
and
thereby justified the arrest
and
detention.
In
the
High
Court, the
judge
concluded
that
the arrest
and
detention were justified because "suspicion focused reasonably
enough" on the two
men
that
theirs was the lorry concerned
and
this was "clearly ahit
and
run
case".
The
Federal Court, however,
held
that
the information available to the police was insufficient to
prove a
prima
facie
case against the men,
and
for
that
reason, the
police
had
no legal authority to make the arrest.
The
Judicial
Committee concluded
that
evidence to establish a
prima
facie
case
must be stronger
than
that
required to found a reasonable suspicion,
so
that
the Federal
Court
had
applied
"a
much
stiffer test"
than
121
4-JOCL
To continue reading
Request your trial