1. ) Wan Mohd Efizan Bin W. Mohd Shamli 2. ) Nurliza Binti Abdullah

1. ) Wan Mohd Efizan Bin W. Mohd Shamli 2. ) Nurliza Binti Abdullah

Prosecution proved the chemical identity and weights of methamphetamine and established that the accused had exclusive occupancy and control of the bedroom where drugs were found; accused’s conduct (including directing officer to wardrobe and presence of his DNA) and credible police testimony proved possession and knowledge; statutory presumption of trafficking applied to the wardrobe quantity and was not rebutted on balance of probabilities; co-accused’s admissions and open display of drugs on dressing table established joint possession; chain of custody was intact and credibility challenges were rejected; therefore guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt and accused convicted on both...

Citation
BA-45A-60-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: Wan Mohd Efizan bin W. Mohd Shamli; Co Accused: Nurliza bt Abdullah
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 May 2024
Case Number
BA-45A-60-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Accused convicted on both charges
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Chain of Custody, Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act S37, Joint Liability S34 Penal Code, Witness Credibility, Prima Facie Burden
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Narcotics/drug Law Evidence Law Possession Trafficking Chain of Custody Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act S37 Joint Liability S34 Penal Code +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 7 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

Wan Mohd Efizan bin W. Mohd Shamli

Accused

Nurliza bt Abdullah

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved ownership, control and knowledge (mens rea) of the drugs
  2. 2 Whether quantity meets statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da)(xvi) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  3. 3 Whether joint possession/intent under s34 Penal Code established

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution proved the chemical identity and weights of methamphetamine and established that the accused had exclusive occupancy and control of the bedroom where drugs were found; accused’s conduct (including directing officer to wardrobe and presence of his DNA) and credible police testimony proved possession and knowledge; statutory presumption of trafficking applied to the wardrobe quantity and was not rebutted on balance of probabilities; co-accused’s admissions and open display of drugs on dressing table established joint possession; chain of custody was intact and credibility challenges were rejected; therefore guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt and accused convicted on both...

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on both charges

Orders

  • Convicted under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (P2) and sentenced under s39B(2) to life imprisonment and 12 strokes
  • Convicted under s12(2) read with s39A(1) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and s34 Penal Code (P4) and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and 3 strokes