[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] INTAN ZUREANNA BINTI ROSLI

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] INTAN ZUREANNA BINTI ROSLI

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not exclude the possibility that others had custody or control of the vehicle (DNA evidence and admission that vehicle was a family car), and it failed to prove compliance with s37B(1)(b) DDA so the alleged information leading to discovery was inadmissible; those gaps created reasonable doubt on mens rea possession and required acquittal at the close of the prosecution case.

Citation
WA-45A-49-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Intan Zureanna binti Rosli
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 August 2024
Case Number
WA-45A-49-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (drug Trafficking) / End of Prosecution (acquitted at Close of Prosecution)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged.
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Admissibility of Statement and Discovery, Caution Under Dangerous Drugs Act S37 B, Search and Seizure, Chain of Custody, Prima Facie Burden
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Drugs Law Procedure Possession Trafficking Admissibility of Statement and Discovery Caution Under Dangerous Drugs Act S37 B +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Intan Zureanna binti Rosli

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (drug Trafficking) / End of Prosecution (acquitted at Close of Prosecution)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved exclusive custody and control of the vehicle by the accused
  2. 2 Whether the accused gave admissible information leading to discovery in compliance with s37B(1)(b) DDA
  3. 3 Whether DNA and other evidence create reasonable doubt as to possession and knowledge

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not exclude the possibility that others had custody or control of the vehicle (DNA evidence and admission that vehicle was a family car), and it failed to prove compliance with s37B(1)(b) DDA so the alleged information leading to discovery was inadmissible; those gaps created reasonable doubt on mens rea possession and required acquittal at the close of the prosecution case.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged.

Orders

  • Accused acquitted and discharged of the charge of drug trafficking