Mazlin Bin Husain [ ]

Mazlin Bin Husain [ ]

The High Court allowed the appeal because the learned Magistrate, having invoked the statutory presumption under section 37(k) DDA at the end of the prosecution case, failed to make any finding after the defence whether the presumption had been rebutted on the balance of probabilities; that non-direction was a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
DA-41S(A)-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Mazlin bin Husain; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 June 2024
Case Number
DA-41S(A)-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (dangerous Drugs) / High Court Appeal Judgment (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed.
Legal Topics
Rebuttable Statutory Presumption, Self Administration Under Section 37(k) DDA, Magistrate Non Direction/misdirection, Standard of Proof at Defence Stage, Quashing of Conviction
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Appellate Review Rebuttable Statutory Presumption Self Administration Under Section 37(k) DDA Magistrate Non Direction/misdirection Standard of Proof at Defence Stage +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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mazlin bin Husain

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (dangerous Drugs) / High Court Appeal Judgment (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the learned Magistrate failed to determine if the presumption under section 37(k) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was rebutted on the balance of probabilities at the defence stage
  2. 2 Whether such failure (non-direction) constitutes a fatal misdirection warranting interference on appeal
  3. 3 Whether conviction under section 15(1) DDA 1952 is safe in light of the above

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appeal because the learned Magistrate, having invoked the statutory presumption under section 37(k) DDA at the end of the prosecution case, failed to make any finding after the defence whether the presumption had been rebutted on the balance of probabilities; that non-direction was a serious misdirection which prejudiced the appellant and made the conviction unsafe, warranting quashing of conviction and sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Conviction set aside