MOHAMAD SUKRI HAT & ORS v. FADHELAH OTHMAN (PENTADBIR ESTET DAN TANGGUNGAN MOHD FADZRIN ZAIDI, SI MATI)
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
AZIMAH OMAR JCA
AZIZUL AZMI ADNAN JCA
LIM HOCK LENG JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: P-01(NCVC)(W)-566-09-2024]
26 JANUARY 2026
[2026] CLJ JT (1)

Abstract – A common law duty of care is owed by the police to a person held under remand or in detention, to protect him from harm or injury, whether from others or himself. The position in Malaysia indicates a broader duty of care in light of the statutory duties which extends to all prisoners. The Police Act 1967 and the Lockup Rules 1953 make no distinction between remand prisoners who are known or perceived to be suicide risks, as they have put in place certain safeguards to prevent suicide. The existence of these safeguards or preventive measures would adequately address concerns that a more onerous duty is placed if the duty were to extend to all detainees, and not just suicide risk. Their very existence puts to rest any contention that suicide risks are too remote or not reasonably foreseeable.

POLICE: Tortious liabilities – Negligence – Duty of care – Police – Death of detainee in lock-up – Detainee committed suicide – Whether duty of care only arose if detainee suicide risk – Whether there was broader duty of care in light of statutory duties extended to all prisoners – Existence of safeguards or preventive measures – Whether there was failure to comply with legal and statutory obligations – Whether detainee's suicide made possible by breach of common law duty of care – Whether misfeasance in public office proved – Whether defendants negligible and liable for damages – Whether Government vicariously liable for detainee's death – Federal Constitution, art. 5 – Police Act 1967, s. 20 – Lockup Rules 1953, r. 10 – Government Proceedings Act 1956, ss. 5 & 6

TORT: Damages – Quantum of damages – Negligence – Breach of duty of care – Police – Death of detainee in lock-up – Whether detainee's suicide made possible by breach of statutory duties and common law duty of care – Whether tortfeasors negligent and liable for damages – Dependency claim – Whether quantum ought to be increased – Whether there was egregious conduct to justify grant of aggravated damages – Whether negligence by itself gave rise to award of aggravated damages