Badan Peguam Malaysia & Ors v Noor Dellhan Bin Yahaya & Ors

Appellant(s):

• Badan Peguam Malaysia
• Karen Cheah Yee Lynn
• Mohamad Ezri Bin Abdul Wahab
• Anand Raj A/L R. Balasupramaniam
• Murshidah Bt Mustafa

Respondent(s):

• Noor Dellhan Bin Yahaya (Selaku Pegawai Yang Menjaga Daerah Polis Dang Wangi)
• Nuzulan Bin Mohd Din
• Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)
• Ketua Polis Negara
• Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia
• Kerajaan Malaysia

• Dato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing
• YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin
• YA Datuk Dr Lim Hock Leng

• The Malaysian Bar and its office bearers organised a "Walk for Judicial Independence" march from Padang Merbok to Parliament House on 17.6.2022, after giving notification under s. 9(1) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 (PAA 2012).
• The officer in charge of the police district (OCPD) imposed conditions under s. 15 of the PAA 2012 restricting the march, relying partly on the absence of a consent letter from Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) and partly on infectious disease regulations; on the day of the event, police barricaded the area and prevented the participants from marching to Parliament.
• The High Court found the OCPD's reliance on the infectious disease regulations to be ultra vires and granted a declaration plus nominal damages of RM1, but dismissed claims for breach of statutory duty (on other grounds), false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office, violation of constitutional rights, and damages; the Bar appealed against these dismissals (respondents did not cross-appeal).

• Whether an organiser of a peaceful assembly in a public place requires the consent of the local authority (DBKL) under ss. 10(c) and 11 of the PAA 2012 before a valid notification can be given, and whether DBKL qualifies as an "owner or occupier" for this purpose.
• Whether non-compliance with s. 10(c) renders a notification under s. 9(1) invalid, entitling police to reject it, and whether the OCPD's response imposing conditions was issued outside the statutory time limit under s. 14(1).
• Whether the police conduct in confining and blocking participants amounted to false imprisonment, violated constitutional rights under Articles 5, 9 and 10, and/or constituted misfeasance in public office, and the appropriate measure of damages for any established violation.

• The Court held that DBKL, having only regulatory and custodial functions over a public place under s. 63 of the Local Government Act 1976, is not an "owner or occupier" within ss. 10(c) and 11 of the PAA 2012; consent from DBKL was therefore not a prerequisite to a valid notification, and the police had no power to reject the notification on that basis, rendering the Notice validly given on 3.6.2022 and the conditions imposed on 15.6.2022 out of the statutory three-day response period under s. 14(1).
• The Court affirmed the dismissal of the claims for false imprisonment (finding only partial, not total, restraint of movement) and misfeasance in public office (finding genuine misinterpretation of law rather than targeted malice or reckless indifference), but allowed the appeal on breach of statutory duty under the PAA 2012 and found a violation of the appellants' constitutional right to freedom of assembly under Article 10(1)(b) (Articles 5 and 9 claims failed as no detention/imprisonment was established).
• The Court awarded special damages of RM19,449 to the first appellant and RM10,000 each to the second to fifth appellants for the constitutional violation, declining general, aggravated or exemplary damages, with interest at 5% from the High Court judgment date and no order as to costs.