[ ] 1. ) SAIFUL ANWAR BIN AHMAD MUSELIM 2. ) MOHAMAD AFFANDI BIN KAMARUDIN

[ ] 1. ) SAIFUL ANWAR BIN AHMAD MUSELIM 2. ) MOHAMAD AFFANDI BIN KAMARUDIN

Court found prosecution proved possession by proximity, control and conduct of accuseds at scene and applied statutory presumption under s37(da) to establish distribution; defendants' accounts were held to be afterthoughts and failed to raise reasonable doubt; sentencing was governed by Act 846 and life imprisonment for s39B(1) offences equates to thirty years under Criminal Justice Act 1953, therefore life imprisonment was imposed for the principal distribution count with other sentences to run concurrently.

Citation
DA-45-1-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Norazlinawati binti Mohd Arshad; Accused: Saiful Anwar bin Ahmad Muselim; Accused: Mohamad Affandi bin Kamarudin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 July 2023
Case Number
DA-45-1-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Accuseds convicted on all counts and sentenced
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Distribution, Statutory Presumptions, Mitigation, Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty, Life Imprisonment Interpretation
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Sentencing Possession Trafficking Distribution Statutory Presumptions Mitigation +2 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norazlinawati binti Mohd Arshad

Prosecutor

Saiful Anwar bin Ahmad Muselim

Accused

Mohamad Affandi bin Kamarudin

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession of the seized drugs by the accuseds
  2. 2 Whether statutory presumption under s37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 supports an inference of distribution
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' explanations raised a reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

Court found prosecution proved possession by proximity, control and conduct of accuseds at scene and applied statutory presumption under s37(da) to establish distribution; defendants' accounts were held to be afterthoughts and failed to raise reasonable doubt; sentencing was governed by Act 846 and life imprisonment for s39B(1) offences equates to thirty years under Criminal Justice Act 1953, therefore life imprisonment was imposed for the principal distribution count with other sentences to run concurrently.

Court Disposition

Accuseds convicted on all counts and sentenced

Orders

  • DA-45A-8-02/2020 (section 39B(1) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952): sentenced to imprisonment for life and 12 strokes;
  • DA-45A-9-02/2020 (section 12(2)/39A(1) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952): sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and 3 strokes;