Iun Chung Peng [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Iun Chung Peng [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

The Court upheld conviction because the appellant had actual and continuous physical possession and control of the luggage, unlocked it with the numerical code demonstrating knowledge, and was wilfully blind to the illicit contents; the quantity triggered the statutory presumption of trafficking under DDA s.37(da)(xvi) which the appellant failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; accordingly conviction stands though death sentence was commuted to 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes.

Citation
S-05(M)-108-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/accused: Iun Chung Peng; Respondent/prosecution: Public Prosecutor
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 March 2025
Case Number
S-05(M)-108-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part; death sentence commuted to 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping, imprisonment to run from 24 June 2019.
Legal Topics
Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs, Possession and Constructive Knowledge, Statutory Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act, Wilful Blindness, Standard for Incompetence of Counsel, Sentencing and Commutation
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedure Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs Possession and Constructive Knowledge Statutory Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act Wilful Blindness +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iun Chung Peng

Appellant/accused

Public Prosecutor

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved trafficking beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether appellant had knowledge of drugs in luggage or was innocent carrier
  3. 3 Whether statutory presumption of trafficking under DDA s.37(da)(xvi) properly applied and rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld conviction because the appellant had actual and continuous physical possession and control of the luggage, unlocked it with the numerical code demonstrating knowledge, and was wilfully blind to the illicit contents; the quantity triggered the statutory presumption of trafficking under DDA s.37(da)(xvi) which the appellant failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; accordingly conviction stands though death sentence was commuted to 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part; death sentence commuted to 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping, imprisonment to run from 24 June 2019.

Orders

  • Conviction for trafficking under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 affirmed
  • Death sentence set aside and substituted with 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping