Public Prosecutor Izzad Holmi bin Ab Suki

Public Prosecutor Izzad Holmi bin Ab Suki

The accused’s explanation was an unsupported afterthought that failed to raise a reasonable doubt; prosecution evidence established the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption under s37(k) DDA was not rebutted, warranting conviction and sentencing.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
AA-82D-05-04/2017 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Izzad Holmi bin Ab Suki
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 April 2022
Case Number
AA-82D-05-04/2017 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Conviction and Sentencing
Outcome
Accused convicted under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and sentenced
Legal Topics
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Presumption Under S37(k), Afterthought Defence, Appeal and Prima Facie, Sentencing Principles, Mandatory AADK Supervision S38 B
Criminal Law Narcotics/drugs Law Evidence Law Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Presumption Under S37(k) Afterthought Defence Appeal and Prima Facie Sentencing Principles +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Izzad Holmi bin Ab Suki

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Conviction and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused’s allegation that he was given a drink which contaminated his urine raised a reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved the offence under s15(1)(a) DDA beyond reasonable doubt after the Court of Appeal ordered the accused to enter his defence
  3. 3 Whether the presumption under s37(k) of the DDA was rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

The accused’s explanation was an unsupported afterthought that failed to raise a reasonable doubt; prosecution evidence established the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption under s37(k) DDA was not rebutted, warranting conviction and sentencing.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and sentenced

Orders

  • Convicted of offence under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Fine of RM2000 in default 5 months imprisonment