Konradt Prosch Public Prosecutor

Konradt Prosch Public Prosecutor

Appellant had custody and control of a bag containing 1382.6g methamphetamine which invoked the rebuttable presumption under s37(d); the quantity, concealment and manner of carriage permitted a reasonable inference of trafficking under s2; chemist evidence confirming the drug was reliable and unexplained investigative omissions or minor inconsistencies did not raise reasonable doubt; appellant failed to rebut presumption or demonstrate innocence and was wilfully blind; appeal dismissed and conviction and mandatory death sentence under s39B(2) affirmed.

Citation
B-05(M)-165-03/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Konradt Prosch; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 October 2020
Case Number
B-05(M)-165-03/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Presumption of Possession (s37(d)), Wilful Blindness, Expert Forensic Evidence (gcms), Credibility of Witnesses, Death Penalty Under DDA
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Trafficking Possession Presumption of Possession (s37(d)) Wilful Blindness Expert Forensic Evidence (gcms) +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Konradt Prosch

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether custody and control of the bag invoked the presumption of possession and knowledge under s37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  2. 2 Whether the facts established trafficking as defined by s2 and conviction under s39B(1)(a) was valid
  3. 3 Whether the credibility of SP5 was tainted by his suspension and sufficient to undermine prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant had custody and control of a bag containing 1382.6g methamphetamine which invoked the rebuttable presumption under s37(d); the quantity, concealment and manner of carriage permitted a reasonable inference of trafficking under s2; chemist evidence confirming the drug was reliable and unexplained investigative omissions or minor inconsistencies did not raise reasonable doubt; appellant failed to rebut presumption or demonstrate innocence and was wilfully blind; appeal dismissed and conviction and mandatory death sentence under s39B(2) affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction for trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 affirmed