The issue is whether the action of Inspector Alpha taking the four men to the police

station constitutes an arrest.

According to the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code, armed robbery is a
seizable offence under section 397 of the Penal Code and in the First Schedule,
particularly column three for section 397, it states that in armed robbery cases, the
police may ordinarily arrest without warrant.

Arrest without warrant by the police is governed by section 23(1) of the Criminal
Procedure Code. The provision laid down several occasions in which the police or the
penghulu may arrest without warrant. One of those is when any person has commit a
seizable offence where a reasonable complaint has been made against that person,
credible information has been received regarding the person, or reasonable suspicion
exists against the person (section 23(1)(a)). In addition, section 23(1)(d) provides that
the police may arrest a person without warrant if that person is found to be with
anything stolen or reasonably suspected to be stolen.

The police act also provides the provision for the police to stop and search any car
without warrant. According to section 24(1)(b) of the Police Act, any police officer
may stop and search any vehicle without warrant if the police officer who stop the car
has reasonable suspicious to suspect that the vehicle is being used in committing any
offence against the law.

As for the definition of arrest, the Criminal Procedure Code does not specifically
define the meaning of arrest. Section 15 of the Code merely tells on the procedure of
an arrest. In other word, the provision only tells on how an arrest can be made.
According to Section 15(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, an arrest is made when
the police officer or other person touch or confine the body of the person to be
arrested. Besides that, arrest has also been made when there is a submission to the
custody by word or by action. In addition, the Halsbury’s Law of England states that
arrest by words is effective when the words are calculated to bring notice that the
person is under compulsion.
In the case of Shaaban & Ors v Chang Fook Kam & Anor, the Privy Council reiterate
on how an arrest is made and thus make it effective. According to the Privy Council,
an arrest occurs in three ways. Firstly, there is an arrest when the police officer state
in terms that he is arresting. Secondly, an arrest occurs when the police use force to
restrain the person whom he is going to arrest. Lastly, an arrest is also effective when
the police’s words or conduct indicates that he is going to use force if necessary to
stop the person whom he is arresting from going away.

The court in Jayaraman v Public Prosecutor, by applying the principle in Shaaban

also held that there was no arrest when the corporal told the people in the temple not
to leave the place. This is due to the fact that the act of the corporal was merely to
stop them from going away as the police wanted to make further inquiries into the
incident.

In the latest case of Yong Moi Sin v Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor, the court had
distinguished between custody and arrest. The court ruled that a person who is in
police custody is not under an arrest and the two can never be equated. The judge in
Yong Moi Sin had also referred to the case of Harbansingh Sardar Lanasingh v
Madar and decided that it is not an arrest when a person is being drive away in his car
accompanied by several officers of the law. In addition, the court had also interpreted
the word custody to include certain circumstances where one of those circumstances
is when police officers accompany a person to the police station. That amounts to a
submission to custody.

To apply the above principles of the law, it is submitted that there may not be an
effective arrest when Inspector Alpha brought the four men to the police station for
further investigation.

Firstly, by applying the principle under the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure
Code read together with section 397 of the Penal Code, armed robbery is a seizable
offence. So, in accordance with section 23(1)(a) of the Code, as the police had
received information which tells the description of the car, the police can arrest them
without warrant. Furthermore, as the police had also found stolen items in the car, by
virtue of section 23(1)(d) of the Code, they may arrest all the men without warrant.
Nevertheless, there may not be an arrest when the police brought all the four men to
the police station because the act of the police did not fall within any of the scope
given under section 15(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Besides that, there is
nothing to indicate that the police have state in terms that he is arresting, neither the
police use force to restraint the four men nor that the police’s words or conduct
indicates that he is going to use force if necessary to stop the four men from going
away. Thus, by applying the principles in Shaaban, no arrest has occurred.

In addition, by applying the principle in Jayaraman, as the police brought them to the
police station, it may not amount to an arrest as what the police do by bringing them
to the station was merely to make further inquiries into the alleged offence.

Aside from all the above, what the police did may amount to custody as oppose to an
arrest. This is due to the fact that by applying the principles in Yong Moi Sin and
Harbansingh Sardar Lanasingh, as the police accompanied all the four men to the
station, that may indicates a submission to a police custody and custody is not to be
equated with an arrest.

In conclusion, the act by Inspector Alpha in bringing all the four men to the police
station for further investigation may not amount to an arrest and may not be an
effective arrest. Instead, it may amount to a custody based on the reasons
abovementioned.