Dr. Faiz Azraai bin Abdul Aziz v Pegawai Memerintah Markas 11 Briged Infanteri & Ors

Appellant(s): Dr. Faiz Azraai Bin Abdul Aziz

Respondent(s):

• Pegawai Memerintah Markas 11 Briged Infantri
• Panglima Markas Divisyen Keempat Infantri
• Panglima Tentera Darat
• Majlis Angkatan Tentera
• Kementerian Pertahanan
• Kerajaan Malaysia

• YAA Datuk Hajah Azizah binti Haji Nawawi
• YA Dato' Azizul Azmi Bin Adnan
• YA Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Bin Jaffril

• The appellant, a senior military medical officer, was placed under close arrest for 114 days pending a Court Martial for an offence under Section 51 of the Armed Forces Act 1972 ("Act 77") regarding the mishandling of medical records.
• Following a separate conviction for being absent without leave, the appellant was dishonourably discharged from service, which led the respondents to withdraw the Section 51 charge as the appellant was no longer subject to service law.
• The appellant filed a civil suit seeking damages for false imprisonment, but the High Court dismissed the claim, finding that the detention was a lawful remand pending trial pursuant to Section 96(3) of Act 77.

• Whether a detention under Section 96(3) of Act 77 is only lawful if the Court Martial trial has already commenced in the sense that witnesses have been called to testify.
• Whether the failure of a commanding officer to provide eight-day delay reports pursuant to Section 94(2) of Act 77 renders a detention pending trial unlawful or *mala fide*.
• Whether the detention of the appellant for 114 days without the trial actually proceeding constituted an illegal exercise of power by the respondents.

• The Court held that Section 96(3) of Act 77 operates mandatorily once an investigation is complete and a charge is referred for trial; the accused must be remanded in close arrest pending the convening of the Court Martial.
• The Court expressly overruled previous High Court authorities to clarify that "close arrest" pending trial does not require the formal commencement of witness testimony to be legally valid.
• The Court ruled that the statutory requirement for eight-day delay reports under Section 94(2) applies only to the investigation stage and does not apply to detentions made after an investigation is completed and a trial is pending under Section 96(3).