MAH KIAT SENG v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & 2 Ors

Facts

On 7 July 2017 a woman called the police alleging that a man had touched her son's head at Suntec City. Two officers, including the second defendant Mohamed Rosli bin Mohamed, found and questioned Mr Mah Kiat Seng outside the mall. Officer Rosli concluded that Mr Mah was dangerous by reason of mental disorder, and Mr Mah was handcuffed and apprehended under s 7 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (MHCTA). He was taken to a police lock-up, searched, seen by a doctor there who referred him to the Institute of Mental Health, escorted between cells overnight by the third defendant and others, and taken to the Institute, which discharged him the next evening.

Mr Mah, acting in person, sued the Attorney-General and the two officers in Suit No 256 of 2020 for false imprisonment, assault and other wrongs. Leave to sue under s 25 of the MHCTA was first refused, but on appeal the Attorney-General consented to leave after video footage showed the third defendant had in fact escorted Mr Mah, contrary to what had been represented. At trial, Officer Rosli no longer maintained his earlier affidavit claim that Mr Mah had been mumbling to himself.

Issues

1. What s 7 of the MHCTA requires before a police officer may apprehend a person believed to be dangerous by reason of mental disorder
2. Whether Officer Rosli honestly and reasonably held that belief, or acted in bad faith so as to lose protection under s 25(1)
3. Whether Mr Mah was assaulted or his property searched or damaged without lawful justification
4. What damages Mr Mah should receive for the claims made out

Holding

The High Court allowed Mr Mah's claim in part. It found that he was unlawfully apprehended and falsely imprisoned because Officer Rosli acted in bad faith, and that he and his bag should not have been searched at the lock-up as if he had been arrested for a crime. It dismissed the remaining claims, including the assault claims against the third defendant, and awarded general damages of $20,000 for false imprisonment, with costs to be heard later.

Reasoning

On the law, the court held that the person apprehended must be told the broad grounds as soon as reasonably practicable; that reported to be mentally disordered means only that the person appears so, with no separate report needed; that the officer's belief must be honest and held on reasonable grounds judged by lay understanding; and that danger means a reasonably imminent risk of physical harm to persons, not property or mere social nuisance. Telling Mr Mah the grounds in the police car was acceptable if the apprehension had otherwise been lawful.

On belief, an IMH case note from the next day showed the claim that Mr Mah was mumbling to himself was made on the night, and the judge found Officer Rosli made it up. His claims that Mr Mah spat into a plastic bag and called himself OCD were also rejected, as the body camera footage showed nothing of the kind. The footage showed only mild eccentricity. The judge found that Officer Rosli, knowing the complaint was not an arrestable offence, took a dislike to Mr Mah for apparently disrespectful conduct. That was bad faith, so s 25(1) gave no protection. The judge also expressed concern that the lock-up doctor's later report may have been embellished.

On the other claims, taking Mr Mah to the lock-up doctor complied with the duty to go to a medical practitioner without delay. The footage did not show a punch or deliberate injury in the cells; minor abrasions flowed from the apprehension itself. Consent to the street search was vitiated by a threat of arrest the officer knew he could not carry out, and nothing in the MHCTA authorised searching a person apprehended under s 7. Damage to the bag zipper was not proved, and police responsibility ended once Mr Mah reached the Institute.

From the judgment