CASE OF THE WEEK

Perayu pertama ("Sureeya") dan perayu kedua ("Asan") telah dituduh dengan satu pertuduhan bahawa mereka bersama-sama dalam melaksanakan niat bersama mengedar 18,754 gram cannabis di Stesyen Minyak Esso, Bentong, Pahang, suatu kesalahan di bawah s. 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ("ADB"). Mahkamah Tinggi telah mendapati perayu-perayu bersalah, mensabitkan mereka dan menjatuhkan hukuman mati terhadap mereka. Maka, mereka telah merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan. Keterangan menunjukkan bahawa SP4 dan sepasukan anggota polis telah menyerbu satu motorvan di Stesyen Minyak Esso tersebut. Apabila SP4 memperkenalkan dirinya sebagai polis kepada perayu-perayu yang berada di dalam van tersebut, mereka berdua telah cuba keluar dari van tersebut untuk melarikan diri. Walaubagaimanapun, kedua-dua perayu berjaya ditangkap. SP4 mendapati ada bahagian lantai belakang van tersebut yang telah diskru. Apabila SP4 membuka kepingan logam penutup bahagian lantai tersebut, SP4 mendapati dadah tersebut tersusun dalam ruang di lantai itu. Perayu pertama telah memberikan keterangan bahawa perayu kedua telah menemukannya dengan seorang bernama Jali. Menurut perayu pertama, dia telah menjualkan van tersebut kepada Jali beberapa bulan sebelum kejadian itu. Pada hari kejadian, menurut perayu pertama, beliau telah diberikan kunci van itu dan telah diminta oleh perayu kedua supaya menghantar van itu kepada seorang bernama Pok Ku. Semasa itulah perayu pertama mendakwa beliau telah ditangkap oleh polis. Keterangan perayu pertama tentang penjualan van tersebut kepada Jali disokong oleh keterangan perayu kedua. Alasan-alasan yang telah dikemukakan bagi rayuan ini adalah bahawa: (i) alasan penghakiman yang disediakan oleh hakim bicara bukanlah satu "speaking judgment"; (ii) hakim bicara tidak memberikan alasan-alasan kenapa beliau mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap perayu-perayu; (iii) hakim bicara telah meletakkan beban yang lebih tinggi terhadap perayu-perayu; dan (iv) hakim bicara gagal menilai dengan secukupnya kes perayu-perayu.

Diputuskan (membenarkan rayuan; mengenepikan sabitan dan hukuman)

Oleh Ahmad Maarop HMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Mahkamah memutuskan satu kes prima facie telah berjaya dibuktikan terhadap perayu-perayu dan mereka telah dipanggil untuk membela diri. Sehingga peringkat ini, hakim bicara tidak menjelaskan bagaimana beliau mencapai keputusan tersebut. Beliau juga tidak memberikan alasan-alasan mengapa beliau memutuskan bahawa kes prima facie telah terbukti. (perenggan 13)

(2) Hakim bicara menyatakan bahawa perayu-perayu telah gagal mematahkan anggapan statutori di bawah s. 37(da) ADB. Ertinya, di akhir kes pendakwaan beliau semestinya telah berpuas hati bahawa mens rea possession telah terbukti terhadap perayu-perayu. Malangnya, tiada apa-apa dalam alasan penghakiman yang menunjukkan bahawa beliau telah membuat dapatan afirmatif tentang possession. Ini adalah satu lagi kesilapan yang dilakukan oleh hakim bicara. (perenggan 13)

(3) Hakim bicara telah membuat kesilapan mengenai beban yang dipikul oleh pihak pembelaan. Hakim bicara berpendapat di akhir kes pembelaan, mahkamah perlu mempertimbangkan keterangan siapa yang lebih dipercayai - keterangan pihak pendakwaan atau keterangan pihak pembelaan. Ini adalah satu salah arahan yang serius. Ia menyalahi prinsip yang telah diputuskan dalam kes Mat v. PP. Untuk memperolehi pelepasan dan kebebasan, perayu-perayu tidak perlu meyakinkan mahkamah bahawa keterangan mereka adalah lebih boleh dipercayai dari keterangan pihak pendakwaan. Kalau pun mahkamah tidak mempercayai pembelaan mereka, tetapi jika pembelaan itu menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah, ia sudah memadai untuk membolehkan mereka dilepaskan dan dibebaskan. (perenggan 21)

(4) Perayu-perayu telah menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah ke atas pihak pendakwaan. Jika hakim bicara telah mengarahkan dirinya dengan betul mengenai undang-undang yang terpakai dan keseluruhan keterangan yang dikemukakan dalam kes ini, tidak mungkin hakim bicara mendapati perayu-perayu bersalah. Oleh itu, sabitan terhadap perayu-perayu adalah tidak selamat. (perenggan 28)

English Translation Of Headnotes

The first appellant ("Sureeya") and the second appellant ("Asan") were charged with trafficking in 18,754 grams of cannabis with common intention at Esso Petrol Station, Bentong, Pahang, an offence under s. 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("DDA"). The High Court found the appellants guilty of the offence, thus convicting them and sentencing them to death. Hence, both the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The evidence showed that SP4 and a team of policemen had ambushed a motorvan at the said Esso Petrol Station. When SP4 introduced himself to the appellants who were in the said van, both had tried to get out of the van and attempted to escape. However, both the appellants were arrested. SP4 found that there was an area on the floor of the back of the van that was screwed closed. When SP4 opened the sheet metal that was covering the floor of the back of the said van, SP4 discovered that the dangerous drugs were carefully arranged in the floor space. The first appellant had given evidence that the second appellant had introduced him to a person named Jali. According to the first appellant, he had sold the said van to Jali a few months before the incident. On the day of the incident, according to the first appellant, he had been given the keys to the van and that the second appellant had asked him to send the van to a person named Pok Ku. It was at that material time, the first appellant alleged, that he had been arrested by the police. The first appellant's evidence regarding the sale of the van to Jali was supported by the second appellant's evidence. The grounds raised in this appeal were (i) the grounds of judgment provided by the trial judge was not a "speaking judgment"; (ii) the trial judge had not given the grounds as to why he had found that the prosecution had successfully proved a prima facie case against the appellants; (iii) the trial judge had placed a higher burden on the appellants; (iv) the trial judge failed to adequately assess the appellants' case.

Held (allowing the appeal; setting aside conviction and sentence)

Per Ahmad Maarop JCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) The court held that a prima facie case had been proved against the appellants and they had been called upon to enter their defence. Up to this point, the trial judge had not given any explanation as to how he had reached the said decision. The trial judge also did not give his reasons as to why he held that a prima facie case had been proven.

(2) The trial judge stated that the appellants had failed to rebut the statutory presumption under s. 37(da) DDA. In other words, at the end of the prosecution's case, the trial judge was satisfied that mens rea possession had been proven against the appellants. Unfortunately, there was nothing in the grounds of judgment that showed that the trial judge had made an affirmative finding on possession. This was another error committed by the trial judge.

(3) The trial judge had fallen into error regarding the burden placed on the defence. The trial judge found at the end of the defence's case, that the court has to consider which evidence was more reliable - the evidence of the prosecution or the defence. This was a serious misdirection. This was against the principles decided in the case of Mat v. PP. To obtain an acquittal and discharge, the appellants need not convince the court that their evidence was more reliable than the prosecution's evidence. Even if the court did not believe the defence, but if the defence could raise a reasonable doubt, it was sufficient for them to be acquitted and discharged.

(4) The appellants had raised reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case. If the trial judge had correctly directed himself to the applicable laws and the overall evidence that had been adduced in this case, it was unlikely that the trial judge would have found the appellants guilty. Therefore, the conviction against the appellants was unsafe.

Kes-kes yang dirujuk:

Ahmad Najib Aris v. PP [2009] 2 CLJ 800 FC (dirujuk)

Balachandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85 FC (dirujuk)

Balasingham v. PP [1959] 1 LNS 8 HC (dirujuk)

Ganapathy Rengasamy v. PP [1998] 2 CLJ 1 FC (dirujuk)

Junaidi Abdullah v. PP [1993] 4 CLJ 201 SC (dirujuk)

Mardani Hussin v. PP [2009] 6 CLJ 301 CA (dirujuk)

Mat v. PP [1963] 1 LNS 82 HC (dirujuk)

Mohamad Radhi Yaakob v. PP [1991] 3 CLJ 2073; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 311 SC (dirujuk)

Muhammed Hassan v. PP [1998] 2 CLJ 170 FC (dirujuk)

Nasaruddin Daud & Anor v. PP [2010] 8 CLJ 21 CA (dirujuk)

Pang Chee Meng v. PP [1992] 1 CLJ 39; [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 265 SC (dirujuk)

PP v. Abdul Rahman Akif [2007] 4 CLJ 337 FC (dirujuk)

PP v. Adetunji Adeleye Sule [1993] 3 CLJ 113 SC (dirujuk)

PP v. Mohd Bandar Shah Nordin & Anor [2008] 4 CLJ 859 CA (dirujuk)

PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 FC (dirujuk)

PP v. Muhamad Nasir Shaharuddin & Anor [1992] 4 CLJ 2028; [1992] 3 CLJ (Rep) 408 HC (dirujuk)

PP v. Tan Tatt Eek & Other Appeals [2005] 1 CLJ 713 FC (dirujuk)

Tan Tang Seng v. PP [2009] 6 CLJ 471 CA (dirujuk)

Yap Chai Chai & Anor v. PP [1973] 1 LNS 177 FC (dirujuk)

Perundangan yang dirujuk:

Criminal Procedure Code, s. 179

Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 37(da), 37(h), 39B(1)(a), (2)

Penal Code, s. 34

Kaunsel:

Bagi pihak perayu - Hisham Teh Poh Teik (Mohamad Hanif Hassan bersamanya); T/n Teh Poh Teik & Co

Bagi pihak responden - Siti Faridah Zainuddin; TPR

[Rayuan dari Mahkamah Tinggi, Temerloh; Perbicaraan Jenayah No: 45-03-2005]

Dilaporkan oleh Amutha Suppayah