1. ) [05-76-04/2017 (J)] LETITIA BOSMAN 2. ) [05-179-08/2017 (B)] JORGE CRESPO GOMEZ 3. ) [05-214-09/2017 (K)] BENJAMIN WILLIAM HAWKES 4. ) [05(M)-118-05/2018 (B)] PUBALAN S/O PEREMAL

1. ) [05-76-04/2017 (J)] LETITIA BOSMAN 2. ) [05-179-08/2017 (B)] JORGE CRESPO GOMEZ 3. ) [05-214-09/2017 (K)] BENJAMIN WILLIAM HAWKES 4. ) [05(M)-118-05/2018 (B)] PUBALAN S/O PEREMAL

Only the s 37(da) presumption was invoked and the trial judge properly found mens rea possession and trafficking from the facts (large concealed quantity, luggage tag, sole control and DNA); the failure to make an explicit separate finding on rebuttal of s 37(da) did not occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
05-76-04/2017 (J); 05-179-08/2017 (B); 05-214-09/2017 (K); 05(M)-118-05/2018 (B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: Letitia Bosman; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)
Court
J
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 August 2020
Case Number
05-76-04/2017 (J); 05-179-08/2017 (B); 05-214-09/2017 (K); 05(M)-118-05/2018 (B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Trafficking) / Federal Court Final Judgment (majority)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Statutory Presumptions, Possession and Mens Rea, Trafficking, Rebuttal on Balance of Probabilities, Trial Judge Directions
Criminal Law Drug Law (dangerous Drugs Act 1952) Evidence Law Appellate Review Statutory Presumptions Possession and Mens Rea Trafficking Rebuttal on Balance of Probabilities +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Letitia Bosman

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Trafficking) / Federal Court Final Judgment (majority)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge wrongly invoked double or alternative statutory presumptions under s 37(d) and s 37(da) of the DDA without electing which to rely on
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to make an explicit finding whether the presumption of trafficking under s 37(da) was rebutted on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the omission occasioned a miscarriage of justice warranting quashing the conviction

Ratio Decidendi

Only the s 37(da) presumption was invoked and the trial judge properly found mens rea possession and trafficking from the facts (large concealed quantity, luggage tag, sole control and DNA); the failure to make an explicit separate finding on rebuttal of s 37(da) did not occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice given overwhelming evidence proving trafficking, therefore the conviction and death sentence are safe and affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under s 39B(1)(a) DDA and death sentence affirmed