AMIERUL MUKMIN BIN BAHARI

AMIERUL MUKMIN BIN BAHARI

The court found prosecution proved chain of custody and Section 31A compliance; laboratory analysis (P9) confirmed scheduled drugs in the accused's urine; the statutory presumption under Section 37(k) was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities because the accused's denial and vape contamination claim were uncorroborated; therefore accused guilty under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and convicted.

Citation
JA-82D-34-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Amierul Mukmin bin Bahari
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 December 2022
Case Number
JA-82D-34-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (drug Offence) / Trial and Sentencing
Outcome
Accused convicted under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
Legal Topics
Chain of Custody, Urine Drug Testing (section 31 A), Presumption Under Section 37(k), Rebuttal on Balance of Probabilities, Sentencing Principles, Cross Examination and Credibility
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Chain of Custody Urine Drug Testing (section 31 A) Presumption Under Section 37(k) Rebuttal on Balance of Probabilities Sentencing Principles +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Amierul Mukmin bin Bahari

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (drug Offence) / Trial and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the urine sample belonged to the accused
  2. 2 Whether the laboratory analysis complied with Section 31A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  3. 3 Whether amphetamine and methamphetamine are scheduled dangerous drugs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found prosecution proved chain of custody and Section 31A compliance; laboratory analysis (P9) confirmed scheduled drugs in the accused's urine; the statutory presumption under Section 37(k) was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities because the accused's denial and vape contamination claim were uncorroborated; therefore accused guilty under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and convicted.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

Orders

  • Convicted of offence under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Fined RM4000.00; in default 12 months imprisonment