PENDAKWARAYA Muhammad Ridzuan bin Darus

PENDAKWARAYA Muhammad Ridzuan bin Darus

On the facts the court held the accused was effectively under arrest (constructive arrest) when ordered to provide his urine; the laboratory confirmatory GCMS report admitted through the science officer proved presence of amphetamine and methamphetamine thereby triggering the rebuttable presumption under s.37(k); deficiencies alleged by defence (overnight storage in steel cabinet, absence of Notice 399, non-submission of preliminary strips, single bottle collection contrary to IGSO F103) did not render the scientific evidence inadmissible or undermine its probative value; prosecution proved a prima facie case under s.15(1)(a) DDA 1952 and conviction followed.

Citation
BH82-20-11/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Muhammad Ridzuan bin Darus
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 November 2021
Case Number
BH82-20-11/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 / Trial Conviction and Sentencing
Outcome
Accused found guilty and convicted under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
Legal Topics
Self Administration (s.15 DDA 1952), Urine Testing and S.31 a DDA 1952, Presumption Under S.37(k) DDA 1952, Chain of Custody, Admissibility of Forensic Reports and Notices (s.399 Cpc), Compliance With Administrative Directives (igso F103), Sentencing Principles
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedure Self Administration (s.15 DDA 1952) Urine Testing and S.31 a DDA 1952 Presumption Under S.37(k) DDA 1952 Chain of Custody +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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Muhammad Ridzuan bin Darus

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 / Trial Conviction and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was under arrest for purposes of s.31A DDA 1952 when urine sample was taken
  2. 2 Whether chain of custody and storage (sample kept overnight in steel cabinet) compromised sample integrity
  3. 3 Whether absence of Notice 399 or non-production of preliminary test strips/test kit renders forensic report inadmissible

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the court held the accused was effectively under arrest (constructive arrest) when ordered to provide his urine; the laboratory confirmatory GCMS report admitted through the science officer proved presence of amphetamine and methamphetamine thereby triggering the rebuttable presumption under s.37(k); deficiencies alleged by defence (overnight storage in steel cabinet, absence of Notice 399, non-submission of preliminary strips, single bottle collection contrary to IGSO F103) did not render the scientific evidence inadmissible or undermine its probative value; prosecution proved a prima facie case under s.15(1)(a) DDA 1952 and conviction followed.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty and convicted under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

Orders

  • Convicted of an offence under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Fined RM5000 (Malaysian Ringgit) in default 5 months imprisonment