472 Malayan Law Journal [2017] 1 MLJ Michael Philip Spears v Ketua Pengarah Penjara Kajang & Anor and another appeal A COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA) — CIVIL APPEAL NOS W-01(IM)(NCVC)-268–07 OF 2014 AND W-01(IM)(NCVC)-415–10 OF 2014 ABANG ISKANDAR, VARGHESE GEORGE AND NALLINI PATHMANATHAN JJCA 18 NOVEMBER 2016 B Civil Procedure — Striking out — Application to strike out action — Appellant brought action for declaration that his prolonged detention pending death sentence inhuman and bad in law — Appellant applied for stay of execution of death penalty pending disposal of suit — Respondent applied to strike out suit — Whether reliefs sought by appellant plainly and obviously unsustainable — Whether appellant had any arguable case — Federal Constitution art 5 — Rules of Court 2012 O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) & (d) The appellant was convicted for the offence of murder and sentenced to mandatory death penalty but the said sanction was still pending execution until the filing of the suit in the court below by the appellant. Since he was charged for the offence in year 1997 until the filing of the suit, the appellant had been in detention for more than 17 years and on the death row for some 14 years. The appellant had also suffered from serious mental disorder as consequence from the prolonged detention. In the court below, the appellant sought for a declaration that the prolonged detention was inhuman, cruel and/or degrading punishment; and that the continued detention was null and void and bad in law. In the suit, the respondent had also applied pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 to strike out the suit (‘encl 8’) whereas the appellant applied via encl 4 for a stay pending the disposal of the suit, of the death sentence. The trial judge allowed encl 8 and dismissed encl 4, hence the present appeals. The appellant’s complaint in the present appeals was in respect of the delay in carrying out the death sentence, the inhuman and degrading treatment that he had to undergo during the detention and also the mental state and condition that he was in presently. The issues for decision were: (a) whether in law and in facts, it had been shown that the reliefs sought by the appellant in the suit were plainly and obviously unsustainable; and (b) whether the contentions of the appellant had any arguable basis or foundation. Held, allowing the appeals; and reinstating and remitting back the suit to the High Court for full trial: C D E F G H I