JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] There are two series of cumulative appeals before us relating to preventive detention under the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance 1959 ('POCA') brought by all the appellants, who were detainees at the time of the filing of their applications for habeas corpus and other declaratory relief. The periods of detention have since expired, although all the appellants were in detention at the time of the disposal of their appeals before the High Court.
[2] The first set of appeals deals with six cases, while the second set of appeals deals with nineteen cases. In both sets of appeals, the appellants were detained under POCA in relation to 'the organization and implementation of online gambling' which was stated to be in contravention of the provisions of POCA.
The High Court
[3] Both sets of cases were heard before two different judges of the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur. The set of six appeals sought to challenge the remand and detention of the appellants under s 4(1)(a) POCA, although the application cited s 4 as well as all the provisions of POCA, and further sought declarations that the arrest and remand of these detainees was unlawful because online gambling did not fall within the purview or scope of POCA. It was further contended that POCA did not apply to foreign nationals.