Mohd Izad Bin Matap

Mohd Izad Bin Matap

The Court accepted the trial judge's finding that the drugs were found in a backpack in the appellant's possession outside the premises, that chemical analysis established identity and quantity, and that defence evidence (including D22) was internally inconsistent and contradicted by SD2's guilty plea and objective evidence; on that basis custody, control and knowledge were established and the quantity supported trafficking, therefore the conviction was safe and must be affirmed.

Citation
B-05(SH)-179-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/respondent (in Cross Appeals): Mohd Izad bin Matap; Respondent/appellant (in Cross Appeals): Public Prosecutor
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 November 2025
Case Number
B-05(SH)-179-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (court of Appeal) / Final Judgment on Appeal — Dismissal of Appeals and Affirmation of High Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence of the High Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs, Possession of Dangerous Drugs, Burden and Standard of Proof, Evaluation of Evidence and Credibility, Section 182 a CPC (duty to Consider Defence Evidence), Adverse Inference (s114 Evidence Act)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedure Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs Possession of Dangerous Drugs Burden and Standard of Proof Evaluation of Evidence and Credibility +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Izad bin Matap

Appellant/respondent (in Cross Appeals)

Public Prosecutor

Respondent/appellant (in Cross Appeals)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (court of Appeal) / Final Judgment on Appeal — Dismissal of Appeals and Affirmation of High Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs recovered
  2. 2 Whether the quantity and circumstances establish trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misdirected or failed to consider statutory declaration D22 under section 182A CPC

Ratio Decidendi

The Court accepted the trial judge's finding that the drugs were found in a backpack in the appellant's possession outside the premises, that chemical analysis established identity and quantity, and that defence evidence (including D22) was internally inconsistent and contradicted by SD2's guilty plea and objective evidence; on that basis custody, control and knowledge were established and the quantity supported trafficking, therefore the conviction was safe and must be affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence of the High Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed by Court of Appeal
  • Conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court affirmed