HAMKAR BIN PATERI @ SUUD

HAMKAR BIN PATERI @ SUUD

The High Court found the prosecution proved all elements: an actual arrest occurred under s31A, the accused selected and provided a sealed urine sample with intact chain of custody, laboratory analysis confirmed methamphetamine, the statutory presumption under s37(k) stood unrebutted, and the Magistrate's factual findings were not plainly wrong; accordingly conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Citation
BA-41H(A)-1-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Accused/appellant: Hamkar bin Pateri @ Suud; Prosecution/respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 September 2024
Case Number
BA-41H(A)-1-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appellate Review From Magistrate's Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Section 31 a DDA Urine Sampling and Arrest, Section 37(k) DDA Presumption of Drug Administration, Chain of Custody and Exhibit Identification, Appellate Review of Factual Findings, Sentencing Principles and Appellate Intervention
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Sentencing Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Section 31 a DDA Urine Sampling and Arrest Section 37(k) DDA Presumption of Drug Administration Chain of Custody and Exhibit Identification +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamkar bin Pateri @ Suud

Accused/appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appellate Review From Magistrate's Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 31A DDA was complied with (reasonable suspicion and arrest)
  2. 2 Whether there was a break in the chain of evidence/identity of urine sample
  3. 3 Whether presumption under section 37(k) DDA applied and was rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found the prosecution proved all elements: an actual arrest occurred under s31A, the accused selected and provided a sealed urine sample with intact chain of custody, laboratory analysis confirmed methamphetamine, the statutory presumption under s37(k) stood unrebutted, and the Magistrate's factual findings were not plainly wrong; accordingly conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal by accused dismissed
  • Cross-appeal by prosecution dismissed