The Federal Court clarifies false imprisonment claims in Sri Sanjeevan a/l Ramakrishnan v ASP Poonnam E Keling & Ors
Written by Jeeva Rachelusun Pragas
Brief Facts
The appellant, Sri Sanjeevan, was arrested on 10 July 2016 under s 3 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (‘the POCA’) and produced before a Magistrate on 11 July 2016, where a 21-day remand order and a detention warrant were issued from 11 to 31 July 2016. The warrant directed that he be detained at the ‘Police Remand Centre, Jalan Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur’, referred to a non-gazetted place of detention, and wrongly described him as charged under another act, although he was only arrested under POCA for investigation.
On 15 July 2016, the appellant applied for habeas corpus; on 26 July 2016, the High Court allowed the application, held that the detention warrant was procedurally defective under s 4(1)(a) of the POCA, and ordered his immediate release. The respondents’ appeal against that habeas decision to the Federal Court was withdrawn.
Following his release, the appellant sued for false imprisonment, claiming that his 16-day detention was unlawful, that his Art 5(1) of the Federal Constitution liberty rights were violated, and alleging physical abuse during detention.
Background
The case arose when the appellant, after being detained under the POCA, obtained a writ of habeas corpus on grounds that his detention contravened mandatory procedural requirements. The High Court found in his favour, and he sought damages for false imprisonment, arguing that the habeas corpus order proved the wrongful nature of his detention. However, his victory in the High Court was overturned by the Court of Appeal, leading to the present Federal Court appeal.
The Legal Issue
The Federal Court was asked to clarify whether a successful habeas corpus application, which results in a detainee’s release for unlawful detention, means that the detaining authorities are automatically liable for false imprisonment and damages in civil proceedings. The constitutional question focused on whether a breach of procedure under Arts 5 and 151 of the Federal Constitution (right to life and liberty) that results in habeas corpus is enough, by itself, to found a claim for civil damages in tort.
Federal Court Decision
Habeas corpus is granted only when detention is unlawful, and such unlawfulness necessarily means a breach of Art 5(1) of the Federal Constitution, liberty. However, a breach of liberty does not automatically ground false imprisonment where the plaintiff must still satisfy the specific elements of the tort.
In a false imprisonment claim, the plaintiff must prove imprisonment and absence of lawful authority; once imprisonment is shown, the burden shifts to the defendant to justify the detention. A habeas corpus order is strong, weighty evidence that the detention was unlawful, but it is not res judicata and does not conclusively establish civil liability. Where detention is under a judicial order of remand, the executing officer has a defence of lawful authority; liability for false imprisonment ‘ceases’ once a court order intervenes. The proper remedy, if the order was procured maliciously or without reasonable cause, is malicious prosecution, not false imprisonment.
On the facts of the case at hand, the magistrate’s warrant, albeit defective in naming a non-gazetted place, was a judicial act, an error attributable to the court, not the first respondent, who merely executed the order.
Significance of the Decision
This landmark decision signals to litigants that successful habeas corpus cases do not guarantee damages for false imprisonment. The ruling distinguishes between public law remedies such as release via habeas corpus and private law actions otherwise known as damages in tort. It upholds that technical errors in judicial warrants or detention orders, when the officer acts in compliance, will not expose police or authorities to civil liability for false imprisonment. The judgment is crucial guidance for civil rights and criminal procedure practitioners.
Civil actions for wrongful detention following habeas corpus relief face significant legal hurdles. This case shows that a habeas order is not conclusive proof. Claimants must independently establish the absence of lawful authority and cannot simply rely on procedural breaches found in the criminal or constitutional context. Claims relating to the conduct during detention, such as alleged physical abuse, must also be brought under the proper heads of trespass or negligence, not false imprisonment.
Conclusion
The issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in relation to a remand does not, by necessary implication, make the detaining officer liable in tort for false imprisonment. While habeas corpus confirms that detention was not ‘in accordance with law’ for constitutional purposes, any civil claim must still satisfy the elements of the chosen tort, and detention under a judicial remand order generally affords a defence of lawful authority.
Published on 10 December 2025