HAMKAR BIN PATERI @ SUUD

HAMKAR BIN PATERI @ SUUD

The High Court found section 31A was complied with (actual arrest and lawful urine collection), there was no break in the chain of custody, the laboratory confirmation established methamphetamine in the accused's urine, the defence failed to rebut the statutory presumption under s.37(k) DDA, and the Magistrate's sentence (RM4000 fine, six months' default imprisonment, two years' supervision) was proportionate; therefore appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed and conviction and sentence affirmed.

Citation
BA-41S(A)-7-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Accused; Appellant in BA 41 S(a) 7 06/2023; Respondent in Prosecution Cross Appeal: Hamkar bin Pateri @ Suud; Prosecution; Respondent in BA 41 S(a) 7 06/2023; Appellant in Cross Appeal: Pendakwa Raya
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 September 2024
Case Number
BA-41S(A)-7-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Consumption) / High Court Appeal From Magistrate's Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Section 31 a (urine Specimen/arreest), Section 37(k) (presumption of Consumption), Chain of Custody, Constructive/actual Arrest, Sentencing and Appellate Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Drugs Law Procedure on Appeal Police Powers Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Section 31 a (urine Specimen/arreest) Section 37(k) (presumption of Consumption) +3 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamkar bin Pateri @ Suud

Accused; Appellant in BA 41 S(a) 7 06/2023; Respondent in Prosecution Cross Appeal

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution; Respondent in BA 41 S(a) 7 06/2023; Appellant in Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Consumption) / High Court Appeal From Magistrate's Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 31A DDA was complied with (reasonable suspicion/arrest and urine collection procedure)
  2. 2 Whether there was a break in the chain of evidence/identity of the urine sample
  3. 3 Applicability of presumption under section 37(k) DDA

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found section 31A was complied with (actual arrest and lawful urine collection), there was no break in the chain of custody, the laboratory confirmation established methamphetamine in the accused's urine, the defence failed to rebut the statutory presumption under s.37(k) DDA, and the Magistrate's sentence (RM4000 fine, six months' default imprisonment, two years' supervision) was proportionate; therefore appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed and conviction and sentence affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Orders

  • Conviction under section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 affirmed
  • Sentence affirmed: fine RM4000; in default six months' imprisonment