[ ] MOHD KHAIRUL AMRIE BIN ARIFFIN

[ ] MOHD KHAIRUL AMRIE BIN ARIFFIN

Prosecution failed to prove that the accused had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs found in the bedroom and in the vehicles; there were material gaps: room accessibility by others, absence of forensic link to accused, inability to show exclusive use of vehicles, and failure to call a material witness (Mohd Shahfizal/Epi) who could explain access. Because possession was not proved, the statutory presumption for trafficking under s37(da) could not be applied and no prima facie case existed; accused discharged.

Citation
DA-45-2-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohd Khairul Amrie bin Ariffin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 March 2023
Case Number
DA-45-2-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offences / Discharged at End of Prosecution Case (no Prima Facie)
Outcome
Accused discharged and released (no prima facie; no call to defence)
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Chain of Custody, Prima Facie Assessment, Adverse Inference Under S114(g), Presumption Under S37(da)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Trafficking Possession Chain of Custody Prima Facie Assessment Adverse Inference Under S114(g) +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 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Mohd Khairul Amrie bin Ariffin

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offences / Discharged at End of Prosecution Case (no Prima Facie)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established prima facie case for possession and trafficking
  2. 2 Whether custody, control and knowledge of accused over drugs were proved
  3. 3 Integrity and chain of custody of exhibits (alleged tampering/koyakan)

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove that the accused had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs found in the bedroom and in the vehicles; there were material gaps: room accessibility by others, absence of forensic link to accused, inability to show exclusive use of vehicles, and failure to call a material witness (Mohd Shahfizal/Epi) who could explain access. Because possession was not proved, the statutory presumption for trafficking under s37(da) could not be applied and no prima facie case existed; accused discharged.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and released (no prima facie; no call to defence)

Orders

  • Accused discharged and acquitted of all charges and released