|
PP v. JULASIRI AKILMARA Abstract – At the close of the prosecution's case, there is no statutory or legal requirement for a trial judge to make a formal or spoken declaration specifying whether the accused is called upon to answer a case of actual trafficking or presumed trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('DDA'). An omission by the trial judge to expressly state or record whether a case of direct or presumed trafficking has been established does not render the order calling for the defence defective nor does it cause a miscarriage of justice, provided that: (i) the prosecution's reliance on actual possession to trigger the statutory presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of the DDA is clearly communicated and understood by all parties throughout the proceedings; and (ii) no prejudice was occasioned to the accused in framing or presenting their defence. CRIMINAL LAW: Offences – Trafficking in dangerous drugs – Presumption of trafficking – Duty of trial judge at close of prosecution's case – Trial judge omitted to state whether accused called upon to answer direct or presumed trafficking – Whether statutory or legal requirement under Criminal Procedure Code to make formal declaration – Whether omission fatal or caused miscarriage of justice – Whether accused fully aware of prosecution's case throughout proceedings – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 39B(1)(a) & 37(da)(xvi) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Prima facie – Call for defence – Accused charged for trafficking in dangerous drugs – Presumption of trafficking – Duty of trial court at close of prosecution's case – Trial judge omitted to state whether accused called upon to answer direct or presumed trafficking – Whether statutory or legal requirement to make formal declaration – Whether omission fatal or caused miscarriage of justice – Whether accused fully aware of prosecution's case throughout proceedings – Criminal Procedure Code, s. 180 |