[ ] LIM SHUH PENG

[ ] LIM SHUH PENG

The court found direct evidence (visual observation, CCTV, possession of the bag at arrest, matching clothing and contents, chemical analysis) established custody and control and permitted an inference of knowledge; statutory presumptions under s37(da) applied due to weights, defence failed to rebut those presumptions on balance of probabilities, therefore prosecution proved each element beyond reasonable doubt and conviction followed.

Citation
KA-45A-79-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Lim Shuh Peng
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 April 2024
Case Number
KA-45A-79-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offences (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / High Court Conviction Judgment After Full Trial (defence Evidence Heard)
Outcome
Accused convicted on all three charges under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; sentenced to life imprisonment (treated as 30 years) for each count, to run concurrently; no caning ordered.
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking/distribution, Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act, Prima Facie Case, Conduct Evidence (s8 Evidence Act), Section 182 a Criminal Procedure Code
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedural Law Possession Trafficking/distribution Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act Prima Facie Case +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Lim Shuh Peng

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offences (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) / High Court Conviction Judgment After Full Trial (defence Evidence Heard)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved custody, control and knowledge (possession) of the seized drugs
  2. 2 Whether statutory presumptions of trafficking under s37(da) ADB 1952 applied based on drug weight
  3. 3 Whether the defence raised reasonable doubt or rebutted presumptions on a balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The court found direct evidence (visual observation, CCTV, possession of the bag at arrest, matching clothing and contents, chemical analysis) established custody and control and permitted an inference of knowledge; statutory presumptions under s37(da) applied due to weights, defence failed to rebut those presumptions on balance of probabilities, therefore prosecution proved each element beyond reasonable doubt and conviction followed.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on all three charges under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; sentenced to life imprisonment (treated as 30 years) for each count, to run concurrently; no caning ordered.

Orders

  • Convicted on three counts under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
  • Sentence: life imprisonment (30 years) for each count, to run concurrently, to commence from date of conviction.