Pegawai Penyiasat Jenayah Korporat/Kewangan Insp Jeinthan Annanthakrishnan & Anor v Ananthagopi A/L Alaguganesan

Appellant(s):

• Pegawai Penyiasat Jenayah Korporat/Kewangan Insp Jeinthan Annanthakrishnan
• Kerajaan Malaysia

Respondent(s): Ananthagopi A/L Alaguganesan

• YA Datuk Supang Lian
• YA Dato' Lim Chong Fong
• YA Dato Alwi Bin Abdul Wahab

• The respondent, a foreign national, was stranded in Malaysia due to the Movement Control Order (MCO), with his social visit pass expiring, despite an Immigration Department circular allowing such individuals to remain lawfully.
• The first appellant, a police officer, arrested the respondent during a raid for an unrelated theft investigation and subsequently detained him for an alleged immigration offence of overstaying.
• The respondent was detained for 12 days before being charged and a further 18 days under remand, eventually released after the Immigration Department confirmed the validity of its circular, leading him to sue for unlawful arrest and detention.

• Whether the High Court judge was "plainly wrong" in finding that the arrest and detention of the respondent by the first appellant were unlawful.
• Whether the first appellant had an honest belief on reasonable grounds that an immigration offence had been committed, considering the failure to inform the respondent of the grounds of arrest immediately and to allow him to produce identification.
• Whether the first appellant's actions, including detaining the respondent despite knowledge of the Immigration Department's circular and the authenticity of his travel documents, justified an award of exemplary damages and vicarious liability against the second appellant.

• The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the arrest and detention were unlawful, finding no reason to interfere with the High Court's factual findings or conclusions of law.
• The Court concurred that the first appellant did not possess an honest belief on reasonable grounds for the arrest, citing the failure to inform the respondent of the grounds of arrest and to provide an opportunity to produce identification documents.
• The Court upheld the award of general and exemplary damages, agreeing that the first appellant's conduct was wrongful, oppressive, arbitrary, or unconstitutional, thereby establishing the second appellant's vicarious liability.