ROSLI BIN YUSOF

ROSLI BIN YUSOF

The Court held the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had actual possession and knowledge of 112,892 grams of cannabis; the failures alleged (not calling certain witnesses, producing CCTV or seized phones) did not amount to withholding or suppression of material evidence under s114(g) and therefore no adverse inference arose; the presumption under s37(da) was not rebutted and the conviction and death sentence under s39B(2) were upheld.

Citation
P-05(M)-297-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/accused: Rosli bin Yusof; Respondent/prosecution: Pendakwa Raya
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 October 2019
Case Number
P-05(M)-297-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Trafficking) / Court of Appeal Judgment (hearing and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence upheld.
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Possession and Knowledge, Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act S114(g), Presumption Under Dangerous Drugs Act S37(da), Section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Drug Trafficking Possession and Knowledge Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act S114(g) Presumption Under Dangerous Drugs Act S37(da) Section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosli bin Yusof

Appellant/accused

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Trafficking) / Court of Appeal Judgment (hearing and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure by prosecution to call alleged real distributor and arresting officers, and failure to produce CCTV and seized mobile phones, warranted adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved possession and knowledge of 112,892 grams of cannabis required under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  3. 3 Whether presumption of distribution under s37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had actual possession and knowledge of 112,892 grams of cannabis; the failures alleged (not calling certain witnesses, producing CCTV or seized phones) did not amount to withholding or suppression of material evidence under s114(g) and therefore no adverse inference arose; the presumption under s37(da) was not rebutted and the conviction and death sentence under s39B(2) were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and death sentence under Section 39B(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 upheld