MUHAMMAD NUR SYAFIQ MOHD ZANI

MUHAMMAD NUR SYAFIQ MOHD ZANI

Prosecution failed to establish prima facie possession because police evidence contained material inconsistencies about the role and presence of the informer and the identity/location of the accused, the informer functioned as an essential witness who was not called or offered, and the prosecution's reliance on the statutory presumption (s.37(d)) could not cure the evidential gap; therefore accused must be discharged at end of prosecution case.

Citation
KA-45-2-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant (prosecution): Kamaliza binti Md Zain; Respondent (accused): Muhammad Nur Syafiq Mohd Zani
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 September 2024
Case Number
KA-45-2-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (rayuan Jenayah) / End of Prosecution Case No Prima Facie Found (discharge)
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted at end of prosecution case
Legal Topics
Prima Facie, Possession, Trafficking, Informers/agent Provocateur, Presumption Under S.37(d) DDA, Section 40 Informer Protection
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Prima Facie Possession Trafficking Informers/agent Provocateur Presumption Under S.37(d) DDA +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kamaliza binti Md Zain

Appellant (prosecution)

Muhammad Nur Syafiq Mohd Zani

Respondent (accused)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (rayuan Jenayah) / End of Prosecution Case No Prima Facie Found (discharge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved possession of the drugs found in P29 by the accused
  2. 2 Whether the informer acted as an agent provocateur and thus had to be called or made available
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution can rely on the presumption under s.37(d) DDA given evidential gaps

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to establish prima facie possession because police evidence contained material inconsistencies about the role and presence of the informer and the identity/location of the accused, the informer functioned as an essential witness who was not called or offered, and the prosecution's reliance on the statutory presumption (s.37(d)) could not cure the evidential gap; therefore accused must be discharged at end of prosecution case.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted at end of prosecution case

Orders

  • Muhammad Nur Syafiq Mohd Zani is discharged and acquitted at the end of the prosecution case