[ ] HAKIMI AIMAN BIN HUSSIN

[ ] HAKIMI AIMAN BIN HUSSIN

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case that the accused had exclusive possession, custody or control and knowledge of the seized cannabis and clozapine; material gaps (absence of access card on accused, premises rented by girlfriend, evidential ambiguity over passport and bag) created reasonable doubt so statutory presumptions under s.37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and s.30(4) Poisons Act 1952 could not be invoked; accordingly accused is acquitted and discharged without being called to enter defence.

Citation
BA-45A-149-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused / Respondent: Hakimi Aiman bin Hussin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 January 2024
Case Number
BA-45A-149-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (drug Offences) / Appeal Against Acquittal (post Prosecution Case)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged; prosecution failed to establish prima facie case on possession/trafficking and on custody/control for poison offence
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Prima Facie Case, Presumption of Trafficking S.37(da), Custody and Control S.30(4), Chain of Custody
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Possession Trafficking Prima Facie Case Presumption of Trafficking S.37(da) Custody and Control S.30(4) +1 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Appellant / Prosecution

Hakimi Aiman bin Hussin

Accused / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal (drug Offences) / Appeal Against Acquittal (post Prosecution Case)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved a prima facie case on possession, knowledge and trafficking under s.39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  2. 2 Whether the presumption under s.37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 applies
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution proved custody/control and knowledge for offence under s.30(3) Poisons Act 1952 and the presumption under s.30(4) applies

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case that the accused had exclusive possession, custody or control and knowledge of the seized cannabis and clozapine; material gaps (absence of access card on accused, premises rented by girlfriend, evidential ambiguity over passport and bag) created reasonable doubt so statutory presumptions under s.37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and s.30(4) Poisons Act 1952 could not be invoked; accordingly accused is acquitted and discharged without being called to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged; prosecution failed to establish prima facie case on possession/trafficking and on custody/control for poison offence

Orders

  • Accused Hakimi Aiman bin Hussin is acquitted and discharged of all charges without being called to enter his defence