[ ] NORAZLIZAM BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

[ ] NORAZLIZAM BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

Prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of possession because it did not exclude possibility of access by others to the vehicle or establish the accused's knowledge of concealed drugs; contradictions in police evidence and failure to call the registered owner or take all reasonable steps to secure that witness (and to make ID61 admissible) meant no prima facie case was made out; accordingly accused was discharged at close of prosecution.

Citation
PA-45A-51-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Norazlizam bin Abdul Rahman
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 July 2024
Case Number
PA-45A-51-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs / End of Prosecution Case Accused Discharged at Close of Prosecution
Outcome
Accused discharged and released at close of prosecution; not called to enter defence.
Legal Topics
Possession, Knowledge (mens Rea), Constructive Possession, Prima Facie Test, Admissibility of Hearsay, Chain of Custody, Statutory Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs/narcotics Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Possession Knowledge (mens Rea) Constructive Possession Prima Facie Test +3 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Norazlizam bin Abdul Rahman

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs / End of Prosecution Case Accused Discharged at Close of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved possession (custody, control and knowledge) of the seized drugs
  2. 2 Whether the statutory presumption of trafficking under s.37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 applies
  3. 3 Whether out-of-court statement ID61 (recording of registered owner) was admissible under s.32(1)(i) Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of possession because it did not exclude possibility of access by others to the vehicle or establish the accused's knowledge of concealed drugs; contradictions in police evidence and failure to call the registered owner or take all reasonable steps to secure that witness (and to make ID61 admissible) meant no prima facie case was made out; accordingly accused was discharged at close of prosecution.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and released at close of prosecution; not called to enter defence.

Orders

  • Accused Norazlizam bin Abdul Rahman is discharged and acquitted and released without being called upon to enter his defence.
  • Out-of-court recording ID61 excluded and not admitted into evidence.