CASE OF THE WEEK

The appellant (`accused') was found guilty and sentenced to death by the High Court for trafficking in 1,843g cannabis under s. 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (`DDA'). The same court acquitted and discharged him and a woman (`Paridah') of another joint charge of trafficking in 2,686g cannabis. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence. According to the prosecution's evidence, a police party acting on a tip-off were waiting in ambush near a restaurant when they noticed the accused carrying a plastic bag (`P24') and walking with Paridah towards the restaurant. When the members of the police party approached them, identified themselves and attempted to arrest the duo, the accused put up a struggle and tried to flee but was overpowered. Paridah was also arrested. The police found the cannabis in P24. When his defence was called, the accused told the court that he had met Paridah earlier in the evening on the day in question and both of them went to a restaurant to dine. While they were eating he said Paridah received a call on her handphone and she requested the caller to come to the restaurant. She then asked the accused to go to the room where she lived to fetch P24 using her house keys. He said whilst walking back to the restaurant with P24 he saw Paridah walking on the same road accompanied by two persons on a motorcycle who were riding slowly alongside her. When he handed P24 to Paridah, she, in turn, handed it to the persons on the motorcycle. At that time the accused heard someone shout `police' and the persons on the motorcycle threw P24 to the ground and fled while both he and Paridah were arrested. The accused's defence was that he was an innocent carrier.

Held (unanimously dismissing the appeal)

Per Abdul Malik Ishak JCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) The High Court had rightly made an affirmative finding based on the evidence that the appellant had mens rea possession of the drugs before resorting to invoke the presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da)(vi) of the DDA and calling on the accused to enter his defence. Once the elements of possession had been proved, the compelling presumption of trafficking had to be invoked. (paras 31 & 32)

(2) The accused could not avail himself of the defence of innocent carrier because there was ample evidence to show he had knowledge of the drugs he was carrying. His contemporaneous conduct by fleeing the scene and putting up a struggle with the police party before the drugs were discovered had a direct bearing on the facts in issue and damaged and whittled away the presumption of innocence on his part. (para 34)

(3) The accused sprung a surprise when he said P24 belonged to Paridah. This version was only brought up when the accused was called upon to enter his defence after he and Paridah were acquitted and discharged without their defence being called on the joint charge and he, facing the charge alone, took a 180-degree turn and pushed all the blame onto Paridah. During the entire prosecution's case the defence had suggested the drugs belonged to someone else who had escaped but certainly not to Paridah. (paras 35 & 36)

(4) If it was true the drugs belonged to Paridah and that he was asked to take P24 from her room, this defence should have been raised at the earliest possible stage and ought to have been categorically and specifically put to the prosecution's witnesses to test the veracity of the accused's version. It ought to have been raised at the first instance when he was arrested or when he was thereafter interrogated or during the entire prosecution's case. The introduction of this contradictory version at such a late stage impacted on the accused's credibility and destroyed the bona fides of his entire defence. (paras 35, 40 & 37)

(5) There was no mix-up of the cannabis forming the subject-matter of the two charges by the government chemist in the carrying out of her analysis of the drugs. (para 41)

(6) The accused's defence was improbable and incapable of belief; it fell far short of rebutting the presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities and did not raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt which the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt. (para 46)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Perayu (`tertuduh') didapati bersalah dan dihukum mati oleh Mahkamah Tinggi bagi pengedaran 1,843g kanabis di bawah s. 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (`ADB'). Mahkamah yang sama melepaskan dan membebaskan tertuduh dan seorang wanita (`Paridah') daripada satu lagi pertuduhan bersama bagi pengedaran 2,686g kanabis. Perayu merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman. Menurut keterangan pihak pendakwaan, pasukan polis bertindak atas maklumat sedang menunggu untuk menyerang hendap berhampiran sebuah restoran apabila mereka melihat tertuduh membawa satu beg plastik (`P24') dan berjalan dengan Paridah ke arah restoran tersebut. Apabila ahli pasukan polis menghampiri mereka, memperkenalkan diri mereka dan mencuba untuk menangkap mereka berdua, tertuduh bergelut dan cuba melarikan diri tetapi tidak berjaya. Paridah juga ditangkap. Polis menemui kanabis di dalam P24. Apabila pembelaannya dipanggil, tertuduh memberitahu mahkamah bahawa dia telah bertemu dengan Paridah sebelum itu di sebelah petang pada hari tersebut dan kedua-dua mereka pergi ke sebuah restoran untuk makan. Semasa mereka sedang makan, dia menyatakan bahawa Paridah menerima satu panggilan ke telefon bimbitnya dan dia meminta pemanggil datang ke restoran tersebut. Dia kemudian meminta tertuduh pergi ke bilik di mana dia tinggal untuk mengambil P24 menggunakan kunci rumahnya. Tertuduh menyatakan bahawa semasa berjalan balik ke restoran dengan P24 dia nampak Paridah berjalan di jalan yang sama diiringi oleh dua orang dengan motosikal yang ditunggang dengan perlahan di sebelah Paridah. Apabila tertuduh menyerahkan P24 kepada Paridah, dia sebaliknya menyerahkannya kepada orang di atas motosikal. Pada ketika itu tertuduh terdengar seseorang menjerit `polis' dan orang di atas motosikal membaling P24 ke atas tanah dan melarikan diri sementara dia dan Paridah ditangkap. Pembelaan tertuduh adalah bahawa dia adalah pembawa tidak bersalah.

Diputuskan (menolak rayuan)

Oleh Abdul Malik Ishak HMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Mahkamah Tinggi telah membuat dapatan yang betul berdasarkan kepada keterangan bahawa perayu mempunyai milikan mens rea dadah sebelum beralih untuk membangkitkan anggapan pengedaran di bawah s. 37(da)(vi) ADB dan memanggil tertuduh membela diri. Sebaik sahaja unsur-unsur milikan telah dibuktikan, anggapan pengedaran yang mendesak perlu dibangkitkan.

(2) Tertuduh tidak boleh menggunakan pembelaan pembawa tidak bersalah kerana terdapat keterangan yang kukuh untuk menunjukkan bahawa dia mempunyai pengetahuan tentang dadah yang dibawanya. Tindakan semasanya melarikan diri dan memulakan pergelutan dengan pasukan polis sebelum dadah ditemui mempunyai impak secara langsung kepada fakta dalam isu dan telah memusnahkan dan mengikis anggapan ketidakbersalahan terhadapnya.

(3) Tertuduh memberikan kejutan apabila dia menyatakan bahawa P24 adalah kepunyaan Paridah. Versi ini hanya dikemukakan oleh tertuduh apabila dia dipanggil membela diri selepas dia dan Paridah dibebaskan dan dilepaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri atas pertuduhan bersama dan dia menghadapi pertuduhan tersebut sendiri, selepas mana beliau menterbalikkannya dan meletak kesemua kebersalahan kepada Paridah. Di keseluruhan kes pihak pendakwaan, pembelaan telah menyarankan bahawa dadah tersebut kepunyaan seorang yang lain yang telah melarikan diri tetapi bukan kepunyaan Paridah.

(4) Jika benar dadah tersebut adalah kepunyaan Paridah dan bahawa dia telah diminta mengambil P24 dari bilik Paridah, pembelaan ini sepatutnya dibangkitkan pada peringkat yang seawal mungkin dan sepatutnya secara khususnya dikemukakan kepada saksi-saksi pihak pendakwaan untuk menguji kebenaran versi tertuduh. Ia juga sepatutnya dibangkitkan pada kali pertama apabila dia ditangkap atau apabila dia kemudiannya disoalsiasat atau semasa kes pihak pendakwaan. Pengenalan versi yang bercanggah ini, di peringkat yang lewat, memberikan kesan terhadap kredibiliti tertuduh dan memusnahkan bona fide keseluruhan pembelaannya.

(5) Tidak ada kekeliruan tentang kanabis yang menjadi subjek perkara kedua-dua pertuduhan oleh ahli kimia kerajaan dalam menjalankan analisis terhadap dadah tersebut.

(6) Pembelaan tertuduh tidak berkemungkinan dan tidak boleh dipercayai; ia gagal mematahkan anggapan pengedaran atas imbangan kebarangkalian dan tidak membangkitkan keraguan munasabah berkaitan dengan kebersalahannya yang mana pihak pendakwaan telah buktikan melampaui keraguan munasabah.

Case(s) referred to:

Aedy Osman v. PP [2011] 1 CLJ 273 FC (refd)

Chan Pean Leon v. PP [1956] 1 LNS 17 HC (refd)

Hoh Bon Tong v. PP [2010] 5 CLJ 240 CA (refd)

Ho Seng Seng v. Rex [1951] 1 LNS 25 HC (refd)

Leow Nghee Lim v. Regina [1955] 1 LNS 53 HC (refd)

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

Ouseng Sama-Ae v. PP [2010] 6 CLJ 416 CA (refd)

Parlan Dadeh v. PP [2009] 1 CLJ 717 FC (refd)

PP v. Badrulsham Baharom [1987] 1 LNS 72 HC (refd)

PP v. Chia Leong Foo [2000] 4 CLJ 649 HC (refd)

Ridwan v. PP [2010] 4 CLJ 570 CA (refd)

Tan Kim Ho & Anor v. PP [2009] 3 CLJ 236 FC (refd)

Teng Howe Sing v. PP [2009] 3 CLJ 733 FC (refd)

Wong Vui Chin v. PP [2011] 3 CLJ 383 CA (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 2, 37(da)(vi), 39B(1)(a), (2)

Evidence Act 1950, s. 8

Penal Code, s. 34

Counsel:

For the appellant - T Vijayandran; M/s T Vijay & Co

For the respondent - Kwan Lisa; DPP

[Appeal from High Court, Shah Alam; Criminal Trial No: 45-31-2008]

Reported by Ashok Kumar