[Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] YAP KIT SEONG

[Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] YAP KIT SEONG

Based on unbroken chain of custody and chemist identification, physical control of the room and clothing with accused’s DNA, conduct showing knowledge and flight, and the quantity of methamphetamine exceeding the statutory threshold invoking the presumption of trafficking, the prosecution proved a prima facie case which the accused failed to rebut; conviction entered for trafficking under s39B(1)(a) and possession under s12(2) ADB 1952 and appropriate concurrent sentences imposed.

Citation
BA-45-22-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Yap Kit Seong
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 March 2025
Case Number
BA-45-22-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (dangerous Drugs) / Trial Conviction and Sentencing (high Court)
Outcome
Accused convicted on all counts and sentenced
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Chain of Custody, Statutory Presumption of Distribution, Dock Statement Assessment, Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Possession Trafficking Chain of Custody Statutory Presumption of Distribution Dock Statement Assessment +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Yap Kit Seong

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (dangerous Drugs) / Trial Conviction and Sentencing (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Identity of seized substances
  2. 2 Chain of custody and chemist evidence
  3. 3 Whether accused had possession, control and knowledge of the drugs

Ratio Decidendi

Based on unbroken chain of custody and chemist identification, physical control of the room and clothing with accused’s DNA, conduct showing knowledge and flight, and the quantity of methamphetamine exceeding the statutory threshold invoking the presumption of trafficking, the prosecution proved a prima facie case which the accused failed to rebut; conviction entered for trafficking under s39B(1)(a) and possession under s12(2) ADB 1952 and appropriate concurrent sentences imposed.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on all counts and sentenced

Orders

  • Convicted under s39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (exhibit P4) – sentenced to 30 years imprisonment from date of arrest and 12 strokes.
  • Convicted under s12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (exhibits P5 and P6) – sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for each count, sentences to run concurrently with the 30-year sentence.